Re: adminpack and pg_catalog

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: 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: 2006-10-21 05:13:03
Message-ID: 21739.1161407583@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 22:59 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Nothing except initdb should add objects in pg_catalog. AFAICS,
>> adminpack doesn't have any special requirements, so it should behave
>> like all other contrib modules.

> Okay. Are there any opinions on whether we should make this change to
> contrib/adminpack now (i.e. during the 8.2 beta), later (for 8.3), or
> not all at?

AFAIR the point of adminpack was to support pgAdmin, which expects those
functions to be in pg_catalog. At some point we might as well just take
it out instead of whack it until it meets some arbitrary restrictions
and isn't at all backwards-compatible anymore.

(No, I don't find these arguments that it mustn't put anything in
pg_catalog to be very compelling ... if we seriously believed that,
we'd have arranged for the system to enforce it.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2006-10-21 06:40:53 Re: [HACKERS] zic with msvc
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-10-21 04:47:02 Re: [HACKERS] zic with msvc