On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello > <fabriziome...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > So, with this patch we can do that: > >> > > >> > ALTER TABLE foo > >> > SET (ext.somext.do_replicate=true); > >> > > >> > When 'ext' is the fixed prefix, 'somext' is the extension name, > >> > 'do_replicate' is the > >> > extension option and 'true' is the value. > >> > >> This doesn't seem like a particular good choice of syntax; > > > > What's your syntax suggestion? > > I dunno, but I doubt that hardcoding ext as an abbreviation for > extension is a good decision. I also doubt that any fixed prefix is a > good decision. >
I use this form to simplify implementation and not change sql syntax, but we can discuss another way or syntax. > >> and I also have my doubts about the usefulness of the feature. > > > > This feature can be used for replication solutions, but also can be used for > > any extension that need do some specific configuration about tables, > > attributes and/or indexes. > > So, create your own configuration table with a column of type regclass. > This can be a solution, but with a config table we have some problems: a) no dependency tracking (pg_depend) b) no correct locking c) no relcache d) harder to do correctly for columns Regards, -- Fabrízio de Royes Mello Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL >> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br >> Blog sobre TI: http://fabriziomello.blogspot.com >> Perfil Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello
