On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takah...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:20, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> It seems like pg_read_binary_file() is good to have regardless of >> whatever else we decide to do here. Should we pull that part out and >> commit it separately? > > OK, I'll do that, but I have some questions: > #1 Should we add 'whole' versions of read functions in Dimitri's work? > #2 Should we allow additional directories? In the discussion, > no restriction seems to be a bad idea. But EXTENSION requires > to read PGSHARE or some system directories? > > #2 can be added separately from the first change, > but I'd like to add #1 at the same time if required. > > Or, if we're planning not to use pg_read_file functions in the > EXTENSION patch, we don't need #2 anyway.
I think it's still unclear what we want to do about #2, so let's focus on the parts we are most certain about first. The whole-file versions seem like a good idea - my only hesitation is, I'm not sure why we didn't include that functionality originally. It seems obviously useful, so does that mean that it was omitted on purpose for some reason? -- 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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
