Re: in-catalog Extension Scripts and Control parameters (templates?)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: in-catalog Extension Scripts and Control parameters (templates?)
Date: 2013-01-28 18:20:16
Message-ID: 19679.1359397216@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> Now that I've written this in that email, I think I'm going to go for
> the new command. But maybe we have some precedent for objects that we
> list in pg_dump only for solving several steps dependency lookups?

Yes, pg_dump has lots of objects that might not appear in a dump.
The most recent examples are the section fence objects ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Francois Tigeot 2013-01-28 18:49:20 Re: SYSV shared memory vs mmap performance
Previous Message Phil Sorber 2013-01-28 18:14:35 Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)