| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Extensions support for pg_dump, patch v27 |
| Date: | 2011-02-04 20:55:41 |
| Message-ID: | m2zkqbzfhu.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> While I'm looking at this ... what is the rationale for treating rewrite
> rules as members of extensions, ie, why does the patch touch
> rewriteDefine.c? ISTM a rule is a property of a table and could not
> sensibly be an independent member of an extension. If there is a use
> for that, why are table constraints and triggers not given the same
> treatment?
I remember thinking I needed to do that for CREATE VIEW support while
discovering PostgreSQL internals.
Regards.
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-02-04 21:24:19 | Re: Per-column collation, the finale |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-02-04 20:34:47 | Re: Extensions support for pg_dump, patch v27 |