Josh Berkus escribió: > On 03/12/2014 03:58 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > I don't like the idea of using reloptions to let people attach > > arbitrary unvalidated settings to tables. 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. > > +1. Relopts are one of the uglier warts we have.
I'm not sure what you're plus-oneing here, but I hope it's not the ability to set custom reloptions altogether. As I interpret what Robert was saying, it was "let's not have *unvalidated* reloptions", with which I'm fine --- it only means we need to make sure custom reloptions are validated, in some way yet to be agreed. I agree that it has gotten too late for this in 9.4, also. I don't see what's so ugly about reloptions as they currently exist, anyway. -- Álvaro Herrera 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
