Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes: > Excerpts from Takahiro Itagaki's message of mié may 26 03:32:56 -0400 2010: >> The new "default_only" field can be initialized only from the internal codes >> and is not exported to user definded reloptions. We could add an additional >> argument to add_xxx_reloption() functions, but it breaks ABI.
> Do we really need default_only entries in user-defined reloptions? > We have yet to see any indication that anybody is using user-defined > reloptions at all ... It'd be good to have an use case at least (if > only to ensure that the API we're providing is sufficient). There probably isn't anyone using them, yet, which seems to me to be a good argument to fix any obvious deficiencies in the API *now* before there actually is anyone who'll be affected. In particular, I suggest that 9.0 would be a good time to add an "int flags" parameter to the add_xxx_reloption functions. The first flag could be default_only and we'd have room to add more later without another API break. 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