2013/1/5 Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
> 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.
if I understand well Robert Haas is for including these fields - so
score is still 2:2 - but this is not a match :)
I have no more new arguments for these fields - yes, there are no change
> Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Josh Kupershmidt||Date: 2013-01-05 18:21:49|
|Subject: Re: bad examples in pg_dump README|
|Previous:||From: Fabrízio de Royes Mello||Date: 2013-01-05 17:59:30|
|Subject: Re: Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation