On 2/1/17 22:03, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut >> <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> On 1/19/17 12:47 PM, Andrey Borodin wrote: >>>> 4. There is some controversy on where implemented feature shall be: in >>>> separate extension (as in this patch), in db_link, in some PL API, in FDW >>>> or somewhere else. I think that new extension is an appropriate place for >>>> the feature. But I’m not certain. >>> >>> 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). >> >> 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. > > Moved to CF 2017-03 as the discussion is not over yet.
Set to returned with feedback, since the same was done to the background sessions patch. I would like to continue working on this for the next release. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, 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
