Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Excerpts from Takahiro Itagaki's message of mié may 26 03:32:56 -0400 2010:
>> The new "default_only" field can be initialized only from the internal codes
>> and is not exported to user definded reloptions. We could add an additional
>> argument to add_xxx_reloption() functions, but it breaks ABI.
> Do we really need default_only entries in user-defined reloptions?
> We have yet to see any indication that anybody is using user-defined
> reloptions at all ... It'd be good to have an use case at least (if
> only to ensure that the API we're providing is sufficient).
There probably isn't anyone using them, yet, which seems to me to be
a good argument to fix any obvious deficiencies in the API *now*
before there actually is anyone who'll be affected. In particular,
I suggest that 9.0 would be a good time to add an "int flags" parameter
to the add_xxx_reloption functions. The first flag could be
default_only and we'd have room to add more later without another API
break.
regards, tom lane
