On 5 January 2013 16:56, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> It seems that we're in agreement, then. I'll prepare a version of the
>> patch very similar to the one I previously posted, but with some
>> caveats about how reliably the values can be used. I think that that
>> should be fine.
> is there agreement of routine_name and trigger_name fields?
Well, Tom and I are both opposed to including those fields. Peter E
seemed to support it in some way, but didn't respond to Tom's
criticisms (which were just a restatement of my own). So, it seems to
me that we're not going to do that, assuming nothing changes.
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Fabrízio de Royes Mello||Date: 2013-01-05 17:59:30|
|Subject: Re: Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2013-01-05 17:21:54|
|Subject: Re: git author vs committer|