On 6 May 2014 20:44, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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.
As long as all the functions are exposed to allow b) to run as an extension, I don't see we lose anything by waiting a while. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
