| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Extensions, this time with a patch |
| Date: | 2010-10-21 15:00:51 |
| Message-ID: | 7D12FC95-5336-41B5-8B75-166A64183FF6@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Oct 21, 2010, at 12:33 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> I don't see what it buys us in this very context. The main thing here to
> realize is that I wrote about no code to parse the control file. I don't
> think the extension patch should depend on the JSON-in-core patch.
>
> Now, once we have JSON and before the release, I guess given a good
> reason to have much more complex configuration files that don't look at
> all like postgresql.conf, we could revisit.
Sure. The reason to do it, though, is so that extension authors can create just one metadata file, instead of two (or three, if one must also put such data into the Makefile).
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Wong | 2010-10-21 15:11:17 | Re: PostgreSQL and HugePage |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-10-21 14:33:05 | Re: Extensions, this time with a patch |