Re: A different approach to extension NO USER DATA feature - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: A different approach to extension NO USER DATA feature
Date
Msg-id 17498.1297097872@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: A different approach to extension NO USER DATA feature  (Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org>)
Responses Re: A different approach to extension NO USER DATA feature  ("David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org> writes:
> We could avoid the need for a per-row "system_data" flag if we required
> extensions to split user-editable and system-provided configuration data
> into different tables. For convenient access to the configuration data,
> the extension could let the user-editable table inherit from the 
> system-provided one, or use a view to combine the two.

Yeah, this is another approach that one could take instead of having
per-row flags.  I'm not sure that it's better, much less so much better
that we should force extensions to do it that way and not the other.
But it's definitely another argument against making a hard-wired
assumption that there will be a flag column.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: More extension issues: ownership and search_path
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: Range Types