On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:31 AM, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru.hanada@gmail.com> wrote:
> (2011/07/11 10:21), Robert Haas wrote:
>> 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 have the 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 separate from table FDW
>> options but then go and make the opposite decision at the column
>> level.
>
> I'm afraid that I've misunderstood the discussion. Do you mean that
> per-table options should be stored in reloptions, but per-column should
> be separated from attoptions? (I think I've misread...)
No, I was arguing that they should both be separate.
...Robert
