| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_execute_from_file, patch v10 |
| Date: | 2010-12-14 01:53:23 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTindk4tL=AHSwbaa1Uhb2zUik1mGbp3gPACUWWF1@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
<dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
> Do you want another patch version from me?
I'm looking at this patch and I'm confused. Why do we need this at
all? pg_read_binary_file() seems like it might be useful to somebody,
but I don't see what it has to do with extensions. And the rest of
this doesn't appear to provide any new functionality. The extension
mechanism hardly needs SQL-callable functions.
As a side note, this comment almost makes sense, but not quite:
+ /* Abuse knowledge that we're bytea and text are both varlena */
...but my real question is why any of this is necessary at all and
what it has to do with extensions.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2010-12-14 02:02:16 | Re: rest of works for security providers in v9.1 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-14 01:41:42 | Re: rest of works for security providers in v9.1 |