On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:31 AM, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru.han...@gmail.com> wrote: > (2011/07/11 10:21), Robert Haas wrote: >> 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... >> >> 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. > > I'm afraid that I've misunderstood the discussion. Do you mean that > per-table options should be stored in reloptions, but per-column should > be separated from attoptions? (I think I've misread...)
No, I was arguing that they should both be separate. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
