Re: Extensions support for pg_dump, patch v27

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
Cc: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Extensions support for pg_dump, patch v27
Date: 2011-02-04 20:34:47
Message-ID: 18630.1296851687@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

While I'm looking at this ... what is the rationale for treating rewrite
rules as members of extensions, ie, why does the patch touch
rewriteDefine.c? ISTM a rule is a property of a table and could not
sensibly be an independent member of an extension. If there is a use
for that, why are table constraints and triggers not given the same
treatment?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2011-02-04 20:55:41 Re: Extensions support for pg_dump, patch v27
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-02-04 20:11:53 Re: more buildfarm breakage