Tom Lane wrote: > But my recollection of the parallel psql patch discussion is that it was > rejected because nobody felt comfortable with the API design. Do we > have any better ideas in that department yet?
It wasn't rejected AFAICT. A finalized API with which there was (almost?) no dissent was posted by you, after a design/path from Greg Stark. The problem is that nobody stepped up to implementing that spec. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
