Re: [HACKERS] pg_background contrib module proposal
| От | Robert Haas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] pg_background contrib module proposal |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+TgmobT1+j10kH_4RDnk-Jd7q+1Oi-NxT44=NXPWaqOtVVW6A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] pg_background contrib module proposal (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] pg_background contrib module proposal
Re: [HACKERS] pg_background contrib module proposal |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.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. ButI’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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: