Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext intoPG core distribution? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Hiroshi Saito
Subject Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext intoPG core distribution?
Date
Msg-id 017101c8ee73$1d81ba70$0c01a8c0@IBMC9A0F63B40D
Whole thread Raw
In response to Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext intoPG core distribution?  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext intoPG core distribution?  ("Marko Kreen" <markokr@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi.

I tackled with hope temporarily. It seems that some adjustment is still required.
http://winpg.jp/~saito/pg_work/plproxy/
However, windows user desires to use. Of course, it is also me. 

Regards,
Hiroshi Saito

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>


> On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 09:37 +0300, Asko Oja wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> One of reasons to get PL/proxy into core is to make it available to
>> Windows users also.
>> The idea is to get to the situation 
>> 
>> createlang plproxy mydb
>> 
>> If we can achieve this without putting plproxy into core then i would
>> like to hear how.
> 
> If the installer project wants to use it on Windows they can. Of course
> that assumes that it runs on windows (I have no idea if it does).



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [RFC] Unsigned integer support.
Next
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: [RFC] Unsigned integer support.