On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:
> On 12/23/2015 05:45 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> I am marking this patch as returned with feedback, there is not much activity...
>
> I just dusted this off yesterday finally. Anyway, based on the
> discussions I plan to:
>
> 1) split it into two separate patches, one for pg_config and one for
> pg_controldata.
> 2) Change the pg_controldata to be a bunch of separate functions as
> suggested by Josh Berkus rather than one SRF.
This looks like a plan, thanks!
--
Michael