Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> AFAICS that means integrating contrib/intarray into core. Independently
>> of whether that's a good idea or not, PG is supposed to be an extensible
>> system, so it would be nice to have a solution that supported add-on
>> extensions.
> Yeah, I'm just wondering if it's worth the effort, especially in view
> of a rather large patch queue we seem to have outstanding at the
> moment.
Oh, maybe we're not on the same page here: I wasn't really proposing
to do this right now, it's more of a TODO item.
Offhand the only reason to do it now would be if we settled on something
that required a layout change in pg_amop/pg_amproc. Since we already
have one such change in 9.1, getting the additional change done in the
same release would be valuable to reduce the number of distinct cases
for pg_dump and other clients to support.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
