"David E. Wheeler" <da...@kineticode.com> writes:
> On Apr 10, 2009, at 12:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I gave my reasoning before: widening this API has possibly nontrivial
>> future maintenance costs, and the actual use-case for the data is
>> unconvincing.
> It seems to me that the immediate patch to simply copy zone.tab has no
> effect on the API. That's a debate worth having, but I don't think
> it's relevant to this particular patch, is it?
Well, as far as I can see the immediate patch is pretty useless without
an API change in front of it. Andrew was threatening to write a
pgfoundry module that read from the file directly, but considering that
such a thing would require superuser privileges it doesn't seem like a
particularly attractive answer.
The immediate patch has other bogosities too: why not iso3166.tab too,
if we are going to start exposing this data? Without an agreed-on API
change we don't really know what we need or why.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
