Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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