On 7/21/2003 9:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>I don't see the problem. >> >> > >I tend to agree with Peter: if dblink is going to start depending on >stuff outside Postgres, it ought to be become a separate project, >if only to simplify distribution and configuration issues. > The ability to optionally link to another library does not necessitate a functional dependency on it.
>Perhaps it could be split into two parts, a PG-specific part and >a cross-DBMS part? > > regards, tom lane > >PS: Has anyone looked any further at the SQL-MED standard? ISTM that's >where we ought to head in the long run. > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
