Enviado via iPhone
Em 02/01/2014, às 22:16, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com escreveu:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:19 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2013-12-31 13:37:59 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
We use the namespace ext to the internal code
(src/backend/access/common/reloptions.c) skip some validations and store
the custom GUC.
Do you think we don't need to use the ext namespace?
yes - there be same mechanism as we use for GUC
There is no existing mechanism to handle conflicts for GUCs. The
difference is that for GUCs nearly no namespaced GUCs exist (plperl,
plpgsql have some), but postgres defines at least autovacuum. and
toast. namespaces for relation options.
I continue to think that the case for having this feature at all has
not been well-made.
We can use this feature to store any custom GUC for relations, attributes and
Some use cases:
* extension options
* config for external apps (frameworks, third part software)
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: