| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrey Borodin <amborodin(at)acm(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_background contrib module proposal |
| Date: | 2017-01-27 14:38:33 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobT1+j10kH_4RDnk-Jd7q+1Oi-NxT44=NXPWaqOtVVW6A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 1/19/17 12:47 PM, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>> 4. There is some controversy on where implemented feature shall be: in separate extension (as in this patch), in db_link, in some PL API, in FDW or somewhere else. I think that new extension is an appropriate place for the feature. But I’m not certain.
>
> I suppose we should decide first whether we want pg_background as a
> separate extension or rather pursue extending dblink as proposed elsewhere.
>
> I don't know if pg_background allows any use case that dblink can't
> handle (yet).
For the record, I have no big problem with extending dblink to allow
this instead of adding pg_background. But I think we should try to
get one or the other done in time for this release.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-01-27 14:40:55 | Re: WIP: About CMake v2 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-01-27 14:37:12 | Re: pg_ls_dir & friends still have a hard-coded superuser check |