On 5 January 2013 16:56, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> It seems that we're in agreement, then. I'll prepare a version of the >> patch very similar to the one I previously posted, but with some >> caveats about how reliably the values can be used. I think that that >> should be fine. > > is there agreement of routine_name and trigger_name fields?
Well, Tom and I are both opposed to including those fields. Peter E seemed to support it in some way, but didn't respond to Tom's criticisms (which were just a restatement of my own). So, it seems to me that we're not going to do that, assuming nothing changes. -- Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
