> > Once we have a "real remote admin API", it becomes an
> argument, and it
> > will have to be adjusted. But we don't have that today, and
> I see no
> > need to create a new guc category just for this. After all, some of
> > these functions will probably go away completely once we
> have such an
> > API.
> None of these functions are getting into 8.1 anyway; we
> should be designing the long-term solution not making up
> short-lived hacks.
I'm sorry, but then why the **** did my question:
> And finally, with something like that in place, would you be fine with
> the file editing functions as they stand (limiting them to the pg
> directories, as I believe it does)?
get the answer:
> I'm OK with them even without the directory limitation as long as
> there's a way to disable them.
If you had just said from the start that these functions would not be
accepted even if the specific concerns raised were fixed, a lot of time
invested by a lot of people would not have been necessary.
I guess I just join the rank of people giving up on this. Too bad for
the people who want to be able to remotely admin their stuff, because I
now think everybody who actually cared have given up.
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Dave Page||Date: 2005-07-30 16:45:15|
|Subject: Re: Updated instrumentation patch |
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2005-07-30 16:06:11|
|Subject: Re: P.tch to mention cost-based delay in vacuum reference|