On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Itagaki Takahiro
<itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't have any problem with a separate patch to try to improve some
>> of these issues, but this is supposedly part of the extensions work,
>> yet (1) most of what's here has little to do with extensions and (2)
>> extensions don't need this stuff exposed at the SQL level anyway. I'm
>> inclined to mark this patch as Returned with Feedback.
>
> If so, I'm not sure why we need to split the EXTENSION patch into sub pieces.
> In my understanding, we did it because the sub pieces are also useful in
> standalone. The requirement for the pieces was changed and extended in
> discussions, but I hope the change will not be the reason to reject the patch.
Well, I think it is best when a patch has just one purpose. This
seems to be sort of an odd hodge-podge of things.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company