Re: minimal update

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: minimal update
Date: 2008-10-20 08:28:35
Message-ID: 48FC4133.7020708@hagander.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>>
>>> OK. Where would be a good place to put the code? Maybe a new file
>>> src/backend/utils/adt/trigger_utils.c ?
>>>
>>
>> I thought the plan was to make it a contrib module.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Well, previous discussion did mention catalog entries, which would
> suggest otherwise, but I can do it as a contrib module if that's the
> consensus.

What would be the actual reason to put it in contrib and not core? Are
there any "dangers" by having it there? Or is it "just a hack" and not a
"real solution"?

//Magnus

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2008-10-20 08:35:38 Re: contrib/pg_stat_statements
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2008-10-20 07:56:04 Re: libpq ssl -> clear fallback looses error messages