2013/1/5 Peter Geoghegan <pe...@2ndquadrant.com>: > On 5 January 2013 16:56, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
