Re: [PATCH] Store Extension Options

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Store Extension Options
Date: 2014-03-13 01:25:46
Message-ID: 20140313012546.GC4744@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus escribió:
> On 03/12/2014 03:58 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I don't like the idea of using reloptions to let people attach
> > arbitrary unvalidated settings to tables. I consider the way things
> > work with GUCs to be a bug, not a feature, and definitely not
> > something I want to propagate into every other area of the system
> > where the underlying storage format happens to allow it.
>
> +1. Relopts are one of the uglier warts we have.

I'm not sure what you're plus-oneing here, but I hope it's not the
ability to set custom reloptions altogether. As I interpret what Robert
was saying, it was "let's not have *unvalidated* reloptions", with which
I'm fine --- it only means we need to make sure custom reloptions are
validated, in some way yet to be agreed.

I agree that it has gotten too late for this in 9.4, also.

I don't see what's so ugly about reloptions as they currently exist,
anyway.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2014-03-13 01:37:33 Re: 9a57858f1103b89a5674f0d50c5fe1f756411df6
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2014-03-13 01:22:54 Bug: Fix Wal replay of locking an updated tuple (WAS: Re: 9a57858f1103b89a5674f0d50c5fe1f756411df6)