Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-01-04 14:06:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> And if we have ext. as a prefix, exactly what prevents conflicts in the
>> second part of the name? Nothing, that's what. It's useless.
> Uh? We are certainly not going to add core code that defines relation
> options with ext. in the name like we've introduced toast.fillfactor et
If this feature is of any use, surely we should assume that more than
one extension will use it. If those extensions are separately developed,
there's nothing preventing name conflicts. I would rank the odds of
two people writing "my_replication_extension" a lot higher than the odds
of the core code deciding to use such a prefix.
What's more, what happens if we decide to migrate some such extension
into core? A hard and fast division between names allowed to external
and internal features is just going to bite us on the rear eventually.
regards, tom lane
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: