Adrian Klaver <adrian.kla...@gmail.com> writes:
> On 01/31/2012 04:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> What's not apparent to me is whether there's an argument for doing more
>>> than that. It strikes me that the current design is not very friendly
>>> towards the idea of an extension that creates a table that's meant
>>> solely to hold user data --- you'd have to mark it as "config" which
>>> seems a bit unfortunate terminology for that case. Is it important to
>>> do something about that, and if so what?
>> Is this anything more than a naming problem?
> Seems to me that would be dependent on what the future plans are for the
> extension mechanism.
My thought exactly --- maybe it's only a minor cosmetic issue that will
affect few people, or maybe this will someday be a major use-case.
I don't know. I was hoping Dimitri had an opinion.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
