From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions |
Date: | 2015-12-26 20:39:23 |
Message-ID: | 567EFAFB.6080005@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/23/2015 04:37 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 12/23/2015 05:45 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>>> Yeah, the last version of the patch dates of August, and there is
>>>> visibly agreement that the information of pg_controldata provided at
>>>> SQL level is useful while the data of pg_config is proving to be less
>>>> interesting for remote users. Could the patch be rebased and split as
>>>> suggested above?
>>>
>>> I am marking this patch as returned with feedback, there is not much activity...
>>
>> I just dusted this off yesterday finally. Anyway, based on the
>> discussions I plan to:
>>
>> 1) split it into two separate patches, one for pg_config and one for
>> pg_controldata.
>> 2) Change the pg_controldata to be a bunch of separate functions as
>> suggested by Josh Berkus rather than one SRF.
>
> This looks like a plan, thanks!
First installment -- pg_config function/view as a separate patch,
rebased to current master.
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
20151226-1-pgconfig.diff | text/x-diff | 14.1 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2015-12-26 20:44:51 | Re: Add numeric_trim(numeric) |
Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2015-12-26 19:25:19 | Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes |