On 02/15/2011 06:55 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 3:31 AM, Itagaki Takahiro
> <itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 01:27, Robert Haas<robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> However, file_fdw is in pretty serious trouble because (1) the copy
>>> API patch that it depends on still isn't committed and (2) it's going
>>> to be utterly broken if we don't do something about the
>>> client_encoding vs. file_encoding problem; there was a patch to do
>>> that in this CF, but we gave up on it.
>> Will we include the copy API patch in 9.1 even if we won't have file_fdw?
>> Personally, I want to include the APIs because someone can develop file_fdw
>> as a third party extension for 9.1 using the infrastructure. The extension
>> will lack of file encoding support, but still useful for many cases.
> I've been kind of wondering why you haven't already committed it. If
> you're confident that the code is in good shape, I don't particularly
> see any benefit to holding off.
>
+10. The sooner the better.
cheers
andrew