| From: | Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_reorg in core? |
| Date: | 2012-09-21 12:33:37 |
| Message-ID: | CA+mi_8ZJME6zC0nKa1Schncknyxr4O3i4HwAmGDj6x-U03UtPw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> If the argument for moving pg_reorg into core is "faster and easier"
> development, well I don't really buy that.
I don't see any problem in having pg_reorg in PGXN instead.
I've tried adding a META.json to the project and it seems working fine
with the pgxn client. It is together with other patches in my own
github fork.
https://github.com/dvarrazzo/pg_reorg/
I haven't submitted it to PGXN as I prefer the original author to keep
the ownership.
-- Daniele
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-09-21 13:20:36 | Re: [v9.3] Extra Daemons (Re: elegant and effective way for running jobs inside a database) |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2012-09-21 11:20:49 | Re: 64-bit API for large object |