On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Haribabu Kommi
<kommi.harib...@gmail.com> wrote:
> May be you missed to apply the 3_shared_catalog_tenancy_v4 path,
> because 4_database_catalog_tenancy_v5 patch depends on it.
> Here I attached all the patches for your convenience, I am able to
> apply all patches in the order without any problem.

Is any committer thinking about taking a serious look at this patch series?

I ask because (1) it seems like it could be nice to have but (2) it
frightens me terribly.  We are generally very sparing about assuming
that "stuff" (triggers, partial indexes, etc.) that works for user
tables can also be made to work for system tables.  I haven't thought
deeply about what might go wrong in this particular case, but it
strikes me that if Haribabu Kommi is building something that is doomed
for some reason, it would be good to figure that out before he spends
any more time on it than he already has.

Apart from the issue of whether this is doomed for some architectural
reason, it is not entirely clear to me that there's any consensus that
we want this.  I don't think that I understand the issues here well
enough to proffer an opinion of my own just yet... but I'd like to
hear what other people think.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

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

Reply via email to