On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Robert Haas escribió:
>
>> I don't see anything in this code that is very rel-specific, so I
>> think it would be possible to implement spcoptions by just defining
>> RELOPT_KIND_TABLESPACE and ignoring the irony, but that has enough of
>> an unsavory feeling that I'm sure someone is going to complain about
>> it... I suppose we could go through and systematically rename all
>> instances of reloptions to ent(ity)options or storageoptions or
>> gen(eric)options or somesuch...
>
> Maybe I missed part of the discussion, but do these really need to be
> handled like reloptions instead of like datoptions? Perhaps the
> deciding factor is that we want to parse them once and store them in a
> cache, so like reloptions; the others are used once per connection and
> then thrown away.
This may be a stupid question, but what are datoptions?
$ git grep datoptions
$
> If this is the case, then I think we could just decide that their name
> is reloptions due to hysterical reasons and be done with it.
Yeah. It's particularly unfortunate that we call them "reloptions" in
the code but "storage parameters" in the documentation. Neither is a
particularly good name, and having two different ones is extra-poor.
But I'm fine with leaving the names as they are and moving on, if no
one objects too much. Speak now or don't complain about it after I
write the patch!
...Robert
