Hi, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes: > In the CF app, this is marked "Ready for Committer". That's a bit vague > here, considering Dimitri, you, Peter, and Alvaro are all committers. > Who is this patch waiting on? Is the discussion concluding, or does it > need another round of review?
Thanks for the confusion I guess, but I'm no committer here ;-) This patch has received extensive review in July and I think it now properly implements the design proposed by Tom and Heikki in 9.3/CF4. As the path didn't make it already, yes it needs another (final) round of review. The main difficulty in reviewing is understanding the design and the relation in between our current model of extensions and what this patch offers. You might find the discussions we had with Markus Wanner quite useful in this light. The current situation is that I believe the patch to implement the same “template” model as the on-disk extensions, down to dependency tracking. IIRC I left only one differing behavior, which is that you're not allowed to DROP an Extension Template when it's needed for a dump and restore cycle, where you could be doing that at the file system level of course (and pg_restore on a new system would depend on other files). Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers