Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAB7nPqQsD_NBWs4jaPSXc8W27Ned__AvH9cHgGgx+zrdpCs-Jw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 7:12 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2015-08-20 09:59:25 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> Is there any significant interest in either of these? >> >> Josh Berkus tells me that he would like pg_controldata information, and I >> was a bit interested in pg_config information, for this reason: I had a >> report of someone who had configured using --with-libxml but the xml tests >> actually returned the results that are expected without xml being >> configured. The regression tests thus passed, but should not have. It >> occurred to me that if we had a test like >> >> select pg_config('configure') ~ '--with-libxml' as has_xml; >> >> in the xml tests then this failure mode would be detected. > > On my reading of the thread there seems to be a tentative agreement that > pg_controldata is useful and still controversy around pg_config. Can we > split committing this? 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? -- Michael
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: