On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 3:31 AM, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takah...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 01:27, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> However, file_fdw is in pretty serious trouble because (1) the copy >> API patch that it depends on still isn't committed and (2) it's going >> to be utterly broken if we don't do something about the >> client_encoding vs. file_encoding problem; there was a patch to do >> that in this CF, but we gave up on it. > > Will we include the copy API patch in 9.1 even if we won't have file_fdw? > Personally, I want to include the APIs because someone can develop file_fdw > as a third party extension for 9.1 using the infrastructure. The extension > will lack of file encoding support, but still useful for many cases.
I've been kind of wondering why you haven't already committed it. If you're confident that the code is in good shape, I don't particularly see any benefit to holding off. -- 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
