Re: adminpack and pg_catalog

From: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
Subject: Re: adminpack and pg_catalog
Date: 2006-11-06 19:12:32
Message-ID: 1162840352.30200.105.camel@silverbirch.site
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 13:37 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > At the moment we only allow 2 types of table. Approved core catalog
> > tables and user tables.
>
> > ISTM we need 3 types of tables, with the additional type being add-on
> > system functionality, such as adminpack,
>
> What? The adminpack module only creates functions.

AFAIK the namespace is the issue, not the type of object.

As I mentioned, we can add LWlock extensions but we don't have an
official home for other database objects.

--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Whidden 2006-11-06 19:14:20 Tsearch Index Size and GiST vs. GIN
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-11-06 18:57:57 Re: cvs 'initdb' -- "vacuuming database template1 ... FATAL: could not identify a comparison function for type aclitem"