From: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, FAST PostgreSQL <fastpgs(at)fast(dot)fujitsu(dot)com(dot)au>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_get_domaindef |
Date: | 2007-01-25 06:23:19 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58.0701251713450.1192@linuxworld.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ... convincing use-case that will justify the maintenance load we
> >> are setting up for ourselves. "Somebody might want this" is not
> >> adequate.
>
> > I realize it is problem to have the function in two places in our code,
> > but if we don't make a user-accessible version, every application has to
> > roll their own version and update it for our system catalog changes.
>
> Nope, wrong, you are assuming the conclusion. Exactly which apps have
> to have this?
Well, the alternative interfaces like pgadmin and ppa. That said, I prefer
the idea of breaking out the queries in pg_dump and psql into a library.
Like you say up thread, that's a big project and it's an all or nothing
proposition.
Thanks,
Gavin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gavin Sherry | 2007-01-25 06:46:30 | Re: pg_get_domaindef |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-25 05:33:41 | Re: pg_get_domaindef |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gavin Sherry | 2007-01-25 06:46:30 | Re: pg_get_domaindef |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-25 05:33:41 | Re: pg_get_domaindef |