On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Itagaki Takahiro
<itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:20, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It seems like pg_read_binary_file() is good to have regardless of
>> whatever else we decide to do here. Should we pull that part out and
>> commit it separately?
>
> OK, I'll do that, but I have some questions:
> #1 Should we add 'whole' versions of read functions in Dimitri's work?
> #2 Should we allow additional directories? In the discussion,
> no restriction seems to be a bad idea. But EXTENSION requires
> to read PGSHARE or some system directories?
>
> #2 can be added separately from the first change,
> but I'd like to add #1 at the same time if required.
>
> Or, if we're planning not to use pg_read_file functions in the
> EXTENSION patch, we don't need #2 anyway.
I think it's still unclear what we want to do about #2, so let's focus
on the parts we are most certain about first.
The whole-file versions seem like a good idea - my only hesitation is,
I'm not sure why we didn't include that functionality originally. It
seems obviously useful, so does that mean that it was omitted on
purpose for some reason?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company