Re: A different approach to extension NO USER DATA feature

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
Cc: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: A different approach to extension NO USER DATA feature
Date: 2011-02-07 16:57:52
Message-ID: 17498.1297097872@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> We could avoid the need for a per-row "system_data" flag if we required
> extensions to split user-editable and system-provided configuration data
> into different tables. For convenient access to the configuration data,
> the extension could let the user-editable table inherit from the
> system-provided one, or use a view to combine the two.

Yeah, this is another approach that one could take instead of having
per-row flags. I'm not sure that it's better, much less so much better
that we should force extensions to do it that way and not the other.
But it's definitely another argument against making a hard-wired
assumption that there will be a flag column.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2011-02-07 17:02:15 Re: Range Types
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-02-07 16:53:42 Re: More extension issues: ownership and search_path