Re: [HACKERS] Extensions and 9.2

2012-01-06 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 5:45 AM, Daniel Farina dan...@heroku.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: Assuming the command in question can be stuffed inside a function, the most you're gaining is a little notational convenience I can answer that

Re: [HACKERS] Extensions and 9.2

2011-12-23 Thread Daniel Farina
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: Assuming the command in question can be stuffed inside a function, the most you're gaining is a little notational convenience I can answer that one (why a full-blown mechanism for a notational convenience). It has

Re: [HACKERS] Extensions and 9.2

2011-12-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote: Either I develop them separately, with separate branches derived from the master one, or I develop them as a stack, one on top of the other. The difference is my ability to provide a patch for one of the features

Re: [HACKERS] Extensions and 9.2

2011-12-21 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: Personally, I hate patches that do more than one thing. For me, the time required to verify a patch goes as about O(n^2) in its size. That's exactly why I'm opening that discussion. The main difference between the approaches I can take is the time it

[HACKERS] Extensions and 9.2

2011-12-20 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Hi, I've sent a first patch to improve extensions for 9.2, and intend on sending a few more which I'll briefly present here. The point of this email is to figure out how to branch the development, as all the patch are going to conflict somehow (change the same parts of the code). Either I