Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 01/31/2012 04:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> What's not apparent to me is whether there's an argument for doing more
>>> than that. It strikes me that the current design is not very friendly
>>> towards the idea of an extension that creates a table that's meant
>>> solely to hold user data --- you'd have to mark it as "config" which
>>> seems a bit unfortunate terminology for that case. Is it important to
>>> do something about that, and if so what?
>> Is this anything more than a naming problem?
> Seems to me that would be dependent on what the future plans are for the
> extension mechanism.
My thought exactly --- maybe it's only a minor cosmetic issue that will
affect few people, or maybe this will someday be a major use-case.
I don't know. I was hoping Dimitri had an opinion.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-01-31 23:43:41|
|Subject: Re: Should we add crc32 in libpgport? |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-01-31 23:04:54|
|Subject: Re: Index-only scan performance regression |
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2012-02-01 04:10:32|
|Subject: Re: [GENERAL] pg_dump -s dumps data?!|
|Previous:||From: Alban Hertroys||Date: 2012-01-31 22:51:33|
|Subject: Re: Help speeding up a left join aggregate|