| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Asko Oja <ascoja(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? |
| Date: | 2008-07-25 14:17:33 |
| Message-ID: | 4889E07D.1090602@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Asko Oja wrote:
> Hi
>
> One of reasons to get PL/proxy into core is to make it available to
> Windows users also.
> The idea is to get to the situation
>
> createlang plproxy mydb
>
> If we can achieve this without putting plproxy into core then i would
> like to hear how.
The same way you would for any other module. This is a non-argument.
If you want to be able to do it without building your own, then you
would need to ask the Windows Installer guys (Dave and Magnus) to
include it - they already include lots of non-core stuff, including at
least one PL, IIRC.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Xiao Meng | 2008-07-25 14:26:05 | [patch] gsoc, improving hash index v2 |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-07-25 14:03:00 | Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? |