On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:20, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems like pg_read_binary_file() is good to have regardless of
> whatever else we decide to do here. Should we pull that part out and
> commit it separately?
OK, I'll do that, but I have some questions:#1 Should we add 'whole' versions of read functions in Dimitri's work?#2
Shouldwe allow additional directories? In the discussion, no restriction seems to be a bad idea. But EXTENSION
requires to read PGSHARE or some system directories?
#2 can be added separately from the first change,
but I'd like to add #1 at the same time if required.
Or, if we're planning not to use pg_read_file functions in the
EXTENSION patch, we don't need #2 anyway.
--
Itagaki Takahiro
