On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takah...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers