On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> Go for it? :) I don't think you'll find much disagreement here, but
> it's no trivial thing to do either.. Perhaps some kind of one-time
> startup "script" that gets run? Or maybe an internal identifier that
> The above doesn't really seem like a response to the piece quoted, so
> I'll respond to just what you wrote- I agree. Let's figure out a way to
> update sql-language functions. Once we have that, it'll certainly open
> up the door to having more of them. I don't think we can punt on this
> as a "well, we'll do it when we need it"; we've needed it in the past
> (as I recall, we've had to tell people in the release notes to hack the
> catalog for some issue or another at least once in most major revs..)
> and it'd be great to have the problem solved.
> Sounds fantastic.
Thanks for the motivational speech! :) I'll start working on it today!
