From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_execute_from_file, patch v10 |
Date: | 2010-12-14 03:50:29 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTik6TUcjKHuF2qGF3tHUZ3fT0913yFvuKkknsZmr@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Itagaki Takahiro
<itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I don't have any problem with a separate patch to try to improve some
>> of these issues, but this is supposedly part of the extensions work,
>> yet (1) most of what's here has little to do with extensions and (2)
>> extensions don't need this stuff exposed at the SQL level anyway. I'm
>> inclined to mark this patch as Returned with Feedback.
>
> If so, I'm not sure why we need to split the EXTENSION patch into sub pieces.
> In my understanding, we did it because the sub pieces are also useful in
> standalone. The requirement for the pieces was changed and extended in
> discussions, but I hope the change will not be the reason to reject the patch.
Well, I think it is best when a patch has just one purpose. This
seems to be sort of an odd hodge-podge of things.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-14 03:53:18 | Re: rest of works for security providers in v9.1 |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-14 03:48:54 | Re: Tab completion for view triggers in psql |