Re: pg_background contrib module proposal

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_background contrib module proposal
Date: 2016-12-21 00:32:11
Message-ID: CANP8+jLHXyDkQ49j6sJR6T5p4Mc7vw5_bJvxAsVii_qnCctinA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 9 December 2016 at 13:00, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> That might be good, because then we wouldn't have to maintain two
> copies of the code.

So why are there two things at all? Why is this being worked on as
well as Peter's patch? What will that give us?

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2016-12-21 00:54:52 Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol)
Previous Message David Fetter 2016-12-20 23:55:36 Re: pg_background contrib module proposal