On 12 March 2014 22:58, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't like the idea of using reloptions to let people attach > arbitrary unvalidated settings to tables.
I respect your opinion. If you disagree, don't use them. Same as is possible for RULEs etc. > I consider the way things > work with GUCs to be a bug, not a feature, and definitely not > something I want to propagate into every other area of the system > where the underlying storage format happens to allow it. Experience was that requiring validation made things more brittle, which is why we relaxed things a few releases ago. Opinions are one thing, experience is quite another. > I kind of think that this is too half-baked for 9.4 and we ought to > punt it to 9.5. No, its fully functional, apart from the requirement for validation which is imposed upon this patch. I'm not sure why this is being blocked. This is a community contribution that seeks to improve everybody's options. Blocking it does *nothing* to prevent individual extensions from providing table-level options - we give them freedom to do whatever the hell they want. Validation is a pipe dream, not *ever* an achievable reality. Blocking is just exercise of a veto for nobody's gain. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
