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. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
