2013/1/5 Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com>:
> On 5 January 2013 16:56, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It seems that we're in agreement, then. I'll prepare a version of the
>>> patch very similar to the one I previously posted, but with some
>>> caveats about how reliably the values can be used. I think that that
>>> should be fine.
>>
>> is there agreement of routine_name and trigger_name fields?
>
> Well, Tom and I are both opposed to including those fields. Peter E
> seemed to support it in some way, but didn't respond to Tom's
> criticisms (which were just a restatement of my own). So, it seems to
> me that we're not going to do that, assuming nothing changes.
if I understand well Robert Haas is for including these fields - so
score is still 2:2 - but this is not a match :)
I have no more new arguments for these fields - yes, there are no change
Pavel
>
> --
> Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
