| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Extension Templates S03E11 |
| Date: | 2013-12-18 10:12:49 |
| Message-ID: | m2fvpq79i6.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I keep telling you this, and it keeps not sinking in.
How can you say that? I've been spending a couple of years on designing
and implementing and arguing for a complete feature set where dealing
with modules is avoided at all costs.
The problem we have now is that I'm being told that the current feature
is rejected if it includes anything about modules, and not interesting
enough if it's not dealing with modules.
I tried my best to make it so that nothing in-core changes wrt modules,
yet finding out-of-core solutions to still cope with that. It's a
failure, ok.
I think we need a conclusion on this thread: Extension specs are frozen.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2013-12-18 10:22:43 | SQL objects UNITs (was: Extension Templates S03E11) |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2013-12-18 09:36:36 | Re: stats for network traffic WIP |