On 2/1/17 22:03, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut
>> <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/19/17 12:47 PM, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>>>> 4. There is some controversy on where implemented feature shall be: in separate extension (as in this patch), in
db_link,in some PL API, in FDW or somewhere else. I think that new extension is an appropriate place for the feature.
ButI’m not certain.
>>>
>>> I suppose we should decide first whether we want pg_background as a
>>> separate extension or rather pursue extending dblink as proposed elsewhere.
>>>
>>> I don't know if pg_background allows any use case that dblink can't
>>> handle (yet).
>>
>> For the record, I have no big problem with extending dblink to allow
>> this instead of adding pg_background. But I think we should try to
>> get one or the other done in time for this release.
>
> Moved to CF 2017-03 as the discussion is not over yet.
Set to returned with feedback, since the same was done to the background
sessions patch.
I would like to continue working on this for the next release.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
