Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of dom jul 10 21:21:19 -0400 2011: > On Jul 9, 2011, at 10:49 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> > wrote: > > In short: in my opinion, attoptions and attfdwoptions need to be one > > thing and the same. > > I feel the opposite. In particular, what happens when a future release of > PostgreSQL adds an attoption that happens to have the same name as somebody's > per-column FDW option? Something breaks, that's what...
Hmm, if you follow my proposal above, that wouldn't actually happen, because the core options do not apply to foreign columns. > Another point: We don't commingle these concepts at the table level. > It doesn't make sense to have table reloptions separate from table FDW > options but then go and make the opposite decision at the column > level. That's a point. I remember feeling uneasy at the fact that we were doing things like that, at the time, yes :-) -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
