On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2013/12/31 Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello@gmail.com> >> >> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > 2013/12/31 Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Hello >> >> > >> >> > I am looking on this patch >> >> > >> >> > ALTER TABLE foo SET (ext.somext.do_replicate=true); >> >> > >> >> > Why is there fixed prefix "ext" ? >> >> > >> >> > This feature is similar to attaching setting to function >> >> > >> >> > CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION ... SET var = ...; >> >> > >> >> > We can use someprefix.someguc without problems there. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> We use the prefix "ext" (aka namespace) to distinguish these options which are related to "extensions". >> >> >> >> Have you seen the previous thread [1] ? >> > >> > >> > yes, but I don't understand why it is necessary? I use a analogy with custom GUC - and there we don't use similar prefix. Only any prefix is required - and it can contain a dot. >> > >> >> 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 >
If we going to that way then we can expand the use of this patch to store custom GUCs to functions also, and we can wrote a function (like current_setting) to get specific GUC values, like:
