Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext intoPG core distribution?

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Hiroshi Saito <z-saito(at)guitar(dot)ocn(dot)ne(dot)jp>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Asko Oja <ascoja(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext intoPG core distribution?
Date: 2008-07-25 17:25:19
Message-ID: 488A0C7F.3060507@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hiroshi Saito wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I tackled with hope temporarily. It seems that some adjustment is
> still required.
> http://winpg.jp/~saito/pg_work/plproxy/
> However, windows user desires to use. Of course, it is also me.

What is stopping you? Whether or not it works on Windows has (or should
have) nothing to do with whether or not it is in core.

Regarding your patch, the change w.r.t. the CONST token looks a bit odd
- can you explain what you're doing and why?

cheers

andrew

>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-07-25 17:26:07 Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2008-07-25 17:24:25 Re: [RFC] Unsigned integer support.