Re: [HACKERS] pg_background contrib module proposal - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] pg_background contrib module proposal
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobT1+j10kH_4RDnk-Jd7q+1Oi-NxT44=NXPWaqOtVVW6A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] pg_background contrib module proposal  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] pg_background contrib module proposal
Re: [HACKERS] pg_background contrib module proposal
List pgsql-hackers
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.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_ls_dir & friends still have a hard-coded superuser check
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WIP: About CMake v2