Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Now, if bdr is installed but the validation doesn't happen unless bdr >> is "loaded" in some sense, then that is an implementation deficiency >> that I think we can insist be rectified before this feature is accepted.
> We could add a catalog pg_custom_reloption with a reloption namespace, > a reloption name, and a pg_proc OID for a checker-function. This is a > lot more overhead than just having a hook the way we do for GUCs, and > I'm not sure how you'd handle invalidation, but in theory it solves > the problem. If we're willing to tie the reloption names to extension names, which seems reasonable to me, then we don't need a new catalog --- just add a checker-function column to pg_extension. I don't follow your point about invalidation. Once an extension has accepted a reloption value, it doesn't get to change its mind later; it has to deal with that value somehow forevermore. Using a hook, or failing to validate the value at all, certainly isn't going to make that requirement go away. 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