Re: Extensions support for pg_dump, patch v27 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Extensions support for pg_dump, patch v27
Date
Msg-id 18630.1296851687@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Extensions support for pg_dump, patch v27  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Extensions support for pg_dump, patch v27  (Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>)
List pgsql-hackers
While I'm looking at this ... what is the rationale for treating rewrite
rules as members of extensions, ie, why does the patch touch
rewriteDefine.c?  ISTM a rule is a property of a table and could not
sensibly be an independent member of an extension.  If there is a use
for that, why are table constraints and triggers not given the same
treatment?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: more buildfarm breakage
Next
From: Dimitri Fontaine
Date:
Subject: Re: Extensions support for pg_dump, patch v27