Re: Extensions, this time with a patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Extensions, this time with a patch
Date: 2010-10-16 22:52:27
Message-ID: 12918.1287269547@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> I think that's something that could be left for later, if not never.

> That's very great news. I'm left with moving the bulk of the code away
> from genfile.c and into postgres.c, and have the former be a user
> callable shell around the later, I suppose. Right?

Umm ... I fail to see why an extensions patch should be touching
postgres.c at all, let alone injecting a large amount of code there.
Whatever you're doing there probably requires some rethinking.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-10-16 22:55:23 Re: Keywords in pg_hba.conf should be field-specific
Previous Message Paul Ramsey 2010-10-16 22:13:30 Re: knngist - 0.8