| From: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_execute_from_file, patch v10 |
| Date: | 2010-12-15 03:43:20 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=fGV6G_J9x7ujtgywf_N1RRGAP4j0jphXmuuDa@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:20, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> It seems like pg_read_binary_file() is good to have regardless of
> whatever else we decide to do here. Should we pull that part out and
> commit it separately?
OK, I'll do that, but I have some questions:
#1 Should we add 'whole' versions of read functions in Dimitri's work?
#2 Should we allow additional directories? In the discussion,
no restriction seems to be a bad idea. But EXTENSION requires
to read PGSHARE or some system directories?
#2 can be added separately from the first change,
but I'd like to add #1 at the same time if required.
Or, if we're planning not to use pg_read_file functions in the
EXTENSION patch, we don't need #2 anyway.
--
Itagaki Takahiro
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-12-15 03:51:13 | Re: Getting "ERROR: no unpinned buffers available" on HEAD, should I investigate? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-15 03:33:44 | Re: CommitFest wrap-up |