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 <alvherre@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
tohave 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 <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
