From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(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: | 2015-12-24 00:37:31 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTZwGG287vHhgaTbnh45wD2dxiUXS_fhaLWmU7NvFenQQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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!
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Haribabu Kommi | 2015-12-24 00:55:47 | Re: Combining Aggregates |
Previous Message | Paul Jungwirth | 2015-12-24 00:36:23 | Re: Review: GiST support for UUIDs |