On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:19 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2013-12-31 13:37:59 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> > We use the namespace "ext" to the internal code
>> > (src/backend/access/common/reloptions.c) skip some validations and store
>> > the custom GUC.
>> >
>> > Do you think we don't need to use the "ext" namespace?
>> >
>>
>> yes - there be same mechanism as we use for GUC
>
> There is no existing mechanism to handle conflicts for GUCs. The
> difference is that for GUCs nearly no "namespaced" GUCs exist (plperl,
> plpgsql have some), but postgres defines at least autovacuum. and
> toast. namespaces for relation options.
I continue to think that the case for having this feature at all has
not been well-made.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
