Re: pg_avd

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Matthew T. O'Connor writes:
>> I think it's a question of, is this solution one that we want to keep
>> for a while, or do we want a different implementation of AVD, perhaps
>> something built into the backend that could take advantage of the FSM
>> also.

> To me it seems that this would be much better if kept inside the server.

I agree, it seems like a server-side implementation would be the only
credible way to go for a production-grade version of this feature.

But I don't see anything wrong with building a client-side prototype,
which is what pg_avd looks like from here.  (Unless the client is
contorted by not being able to get at things it needs.)

            regards, tom lane