Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes: > > Do we really need default_only entries in user-defined reloptions?
I think we don't, but I also think we don't need it at all even in the core because it just set a few variables to the default values with complex code flow. Could you explain why default_only entries idea is better than adjusting those fields in the toast-specific codes? It's my understanding that reloption-framework is just a tool to fill reloption parameters, and it's not responsible for unused fields. > > 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). I use it my textsearch_senna extension :-). But I don't need default_only entries at this time. > 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. I agree the idea when we reach a conclusion to introduce default_only. Regards, --- Takahiro Itagaki NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
