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
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 |