On 5/11/2005 1:14 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 12:36:44PM +0300, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>> 
>> Why does slony use its own transaction id type (xxid) in the first
>> place, why can't we just use standard xid ?
> 
> I believe it has to do with comparison operators; they didn't exist
> in the way Jan wanted, and he didn't want to create new (and
> potentially-future-conflicting) operators there.

They don't exist at all, and to put an index onto an XID one needs a 
full set of operators that then go into an opclass.

The HASHES keyword should be removed from the operators though, Slony 
itself doesn't need this.


Jan

-- 
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck at Yahoo.com #