Enviado via iPhone > Em 02/01/2014, às 22:16, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> escreveu: > >> 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. >
We can use this feature to store any custom GUC for relations, attributes and functions also. Some use cases: * extension options * config for external apps (frameworks, third part software) Comments? Regards, Fabrízio Mello -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
