Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-01-04 13:00:03 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Assuming that such examples are forthcoming, though, I think my main
>> objection to this proposal is the "ext." prefix, which seems precisely
>> 100% useless, not to mention inconsistent with the naming of custom GUCs,
>> which the same extension might well have some of.
> Well, the argument is/was that it avoid conflicts with future core code
> adding more namespaces - like the already existing toast. prefix. If we
> say we can live with the possibility of such conflicts, it seems
> appropriate not to use ext. as a prefix.
And if we have ext. as a prefix, exactly what prevents conflicts in the
second part of the name? Nothing, that's what. It's useless.
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
