At 2014-06-30 09:39:29 -0400, sfr...@snowman.net wrote: > > I certainly don't feel like it's the solution which extension authors > are looking for and will be happy with
I don't know if there are any other extension authors involved in this discussion, but I'm not shedding any tears over the idea. (That may be because I see operational compatibility with 9.[234] as a major plus, not a minor footnote.) > > As Tom would say, I think you just moved the goalposts into > > the next county. (And they're not even the same distance apart any more. ;-) > That's fine- but don't push something in which will make it difficult > to add these capabilities later I've been trying to understand why a pgaudit extension (which already exists) will make it difficult to add a hypothetical "GRANT AUDIT ON goalpost TO referee" syntax later. About the only thing I've come up with is people complaining about having to learn the new syntax when they were used to the old one. Surely that's not the sort of thing you mean? (You've mentioned pg_upgrade and backwards compatibility too, and I don't really understand those either.) -- Abhijit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
