Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-01-04 14:06:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
> Uh? We are certainly not going to add core code that defines relation
> options with ext. in the name like we've introduced toast.fillfactor et
> al?
If this feature is of any use, surely we should assume that more than
one extension will use it. If those extensions are separately developed,
there's nothing preventing name conflicts. I would rank the odds of
two people writing "my_replication_extension" a lot higher than the odds
of the core code deciding to use such a prefix.
What's more, what happens if we decide to migrate some such extension
into core? A hard and fast division between names allowed to external
and internal features is just going to bite us on the rear eventually.
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
