Re: per-column generic option - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: per-column generic option
Date
Msg-id 624F0D91-1E58-401D-A62C-F51DDDFDF671@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: per-column generic option  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: per-column generic option
Re: per-column generic option
List pgsql-hackers
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 to
havethe same name as somebody's per-column FDW option?  Something breaks, that's what... 

Another point: We don't commingle these concepts at the table level.  It doesn't make sense to have table reloptions
separatefrom table FDW options but then go and make the opposite decision at the column level. 

...Robert

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks, v4
Next
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: Cascade replication