| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_execute_from_file review |
| Date: | 2010-12-06 18:50:37 |
| Message-ID: | 97049D9D-9AFA-4EF9-93EB-7B2B43FEAF83@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Dec 6, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> That's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it's wise to design around
> the assumption that we won't need substitutions ever. What I was
> thinking was that we should try to limit knowledge of the substitution
> behavior to the extension definition files and the implementation of
> CREATE EXTENSION itself. I don't agree with exposing that information
> at the SQL level.
>
> (On the other hand, if we *could* avoid using any explicit
> substitutions, it would certainly ease testing of extension files no?
> They'd be sourceable into psql then.)
Yes. And extension authors would not have to remember to include the magic line (which at any rate would break extensions for earlier versions of PostgreSQL).
Best,
dAvid
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-12-06 18:58:15 | Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-06 18:49:28 | Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump |