| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrey Borodin <amborodin(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_background contrib module proposal |
| Date: | 2017-01-27 14:14:59 |
| Message-ID: | 6c74754e-c98c-845c-2535-9b83d7ba0686@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/19/17 12:47 PM, Andrey Borodin wrote:
> 4. There is some controversy on where implemented feature shall be: in separate extension (as in this patch), in db_link, in some PL API, in FDW or somewhere else. I think that new extension is an appropriate place for the feature. But I’m not certain.
I suppose we should decide first whether we want pg_background as a
separate extension or rather pursue extending dblink as proposed elsewhere.
I don't know if pg_background allows any use case that dblink can't
handle (yet).
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brad DeJong | 2017-01-27 14:17:10 | Re: GSoC 2017 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-01-27 14:14:14 | Re: pg_ls_dir & friends still have a hard-coded superuser check |