Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> FWIW, I vote for fixing (a) now but holding (b) for 9.5.
> I guess I'll vote for applying both. I don't see a lot of risk, and I
> think doing one with out the other is somewhat pointless.
The difference is that there's not consensus about the details of the
views ... as borne out by your next paragraph.
Now admittedly, we could always redefine the views in 9.5, but
I'd rather not be doing this sort of thing in haste. Something
as user-visible as a system view really ought to have baked awhile
before we ship it. Patch (a) is merely institutionalizing the
expectation that DSM segments should have names, which is a much
lower-risk bet.
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
