Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The problem is that the long-established spelling is --with-ossp-uuid.
>> I don't think we can break that case. While we could set up something
>> like what you propose alongside it, it doesn't seem like there's any
>> advantage to doing so compared to inventing --with-foo-uuid as needed.
> I was thinking that --with-ossp-uuid would still be required to enable
> UUID generators at all; the other one just selects the implementation to
> use, which defaults to OSSP to maintain backwards compatibility. Maybe
> introduce --with-uuid and have --with-ossp-uuid a deprecated synonym of
> that.
If we were going to do it like that, I'd vote for
--with-uuid={ossp,e2fs,bsd}
with no default at present (ie you can't say just "--with-uuid",
though we'd have the option to allow that in future). But I doubt
this is better than the --with-foo-uuid spelling.
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
