2017-01-27 19:14 GMT+05:00 Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com>: > I suppose we should decide first whether we want pg_background as a > separate extension or rather pursue extending dblink as proposed elsewhere. > > I don't know if pg_background allows any use case that dblink can't > handle (yet). pg_background in it's current version is just a start of a feature. The question is: are they coherent in desired features? I do not know. E.g. will it be possible to copy from stdin in dblink and possible incarnations of pg_background functionality?)
2017-01-27 19:38 GMT+05:00 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > For the record, I have no big problem with extending dblink to allow > this instead of adding pg_background. But I think we should try to > get one or the other done in time for this release. +1! that's why I hesitate between not saying my points and making controversy...need to settle it somehow. Parallelism is a "selling" feature, everything has to be parallel for a decade already (don't we have parallel sequential scan yet?). It's fine to go with dblink, but dblink docs start with roughly "this is an outdated substandard feature"(not a direct quote[0)]. What will we add there? "Do not use dblink for linking to databases. This is the standard for doing concurrency." ? Please excuse me for exaggeration. BTW, pg_background do not have docs at all. [0] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/dblink.html Best regards, Andrey Borodin. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
