| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, 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: | 2016-02-19 02:51:26 |
| Message-ID: | 56C6832E.1010407@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/18/16 3:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I don't understand why you're so opposed to this. Several people said
> that they're interested in this information in the current discussion
> and it has been requested repeatedly over the years.
I think no one except Andrew Dunstan has requested this, and his use
case is disputed. Everyone else is either confusing this with the
pg_controldata part or is just transitively claiming that someone else
wanted it.
I don't have a problem with the implementation, but I don't understand
what this feature is meant for.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2016-02-19 02:53:11 | Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2016-02-19 02:13:33 | Re: Relaxing SSL key permission checks |