2011/6/27 Shigeru Hanada <shigeru.hanada@gmail.com>:
>> * It might be an option to extend attreloptions, instead of the new
>> attfdwoptions.
>> Although I didn't track the discussion when pg_foreign_table catalog
>> that provides
>> relation level fdw-options, was it impossible or unreasonable to extend existing
>> design of reloptions/attoptions?
>> Right now, it accepts only hard-wired options listed at reloptions.c.
>> But, it seems
>> to me worthwhile, if it could accept options validated by loadable modules.
>
> IIRC someone has objected against storing FDW options in
> reloptions/attoptions, but I couldn't find such post. I'll follow the
> discussion again.
I think they should definitely be separate.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
