On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:19 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2013-12-31 13:37:59 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> > We use the namespace "ext" to the internal code >> > (src/backend/access/common/reloptions.c) skip some validations and store >> > the custom GUC. >> > >> > Do you think we don't need to use the "ext" namespace? >> > >> >> yes - there be same mechanism as we use for GUC > > There is no existing mechanism to handle conflicts for GUCs. The > difference is that for GUCs nearly no "namespaced" GUCs exist (plperl, > plpgsql have some), but postgres defines at least autovacuum. and > toast. namespaces for relation options.
I continue to think that the case for having this feature at all has not been well-made. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
