On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 7:12 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> On 2015-08-20 09:59:25 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> Is there any significant interest in either of these?
>>> Josh Berkus tells me that he would like pg_controldata information, and I
>>> was a bit interested in pg_config information, for this reason: I had a
>>> report of someone who had configured using --with-libxml but the xml tests
>>> actually returned the results that are expected without xml being
>>> configured. The regression tests thus passed, but should not have. It
>>> occurred to me that if we had a test like
>>>     select pg_config('configure') ~ '--with-libxml' as has_xml;
>>> in the xml tests then this failure mode would be detected.
>> On my reading of the thread there seems to be a tentative agreement that
>> pg_controldata is useful and still controversy around pg_config. Can we
>> split committing this?
> Yeah, the last version of the patch dates of August, and there is
> visibly agreement that the information of pg_controldata provided at
> SQL level is useful while the data of pg_config is proving to be less
> interesting for remote users. Could the patch be rebased and split as
> suggested above?

I am marking this patch as returned with feedback, there is not much activity...

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to