Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 01/31/2012 04:36 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> What's not apparent to me is whether there's an argument for doing more >>> than that. It strikes me that the current design is not very friendly >>> towards the idea of an extension that creates a table that's meant >>> solely to hold user data --- you'd have to mark it as "config" which >>> seems a bit unfortunate terminology for that case. Is it important to >>> do something about that, and if so what? >> Is this anything more than a naming problem? > Seems to me that would be dependent on what the future plans are for the > extension mechanism. My thought exactly --- maybe it's only a minor cosmetic issue that will affect few people, or maybe this will someday be a major use-case. I don't know. I was hoping Dimitri had an opinion. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
