On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Daniele Varrazzo < daniele.varra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Josh Kupershmidt <schmi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > If the argument for moving pg_reorg into core is "faster and easier" > > development, well I don't really buy that. > > I don't see any problem in having pg_reorg in PGXN instead. > > I've tried adding a META.json to the project and it seems working fine > with the pgxn client. It is together with other patches in my own > github fork. > > https://github.com/dvarrazzo/pg_reorg/ > > I haven't submitted it to PGXN as I prefer the original author to keep > the ownership. > Thanks, I merged your patches with the dev branch for the time being. It would be great to have some input from the maintainers of pg_reorg in pgfoundry to see if they agree about putting it in pgxn. -- Michael Paquier http://michael.otacoo.com
