| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabrizio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Store Extension Options |
| Date: | 2014-01-04 19:06:19 |
| Message-ID: | 21717.1388862379@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-01-04 13:00:03 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Assuming that such examples are forthcoming, though, I think my main
>> objection to this proposal is the "ext." prefix, which seems precisely
>> 100% useless, not to mention inconsistent with the naming of custom GUCs,
>> which the same extension might well have some of.
> Well, the argument is/was that it avoid conflicts with future core code
> adding more namespaces - like the already existing toast. prefix. If we
> say we can live with the possibility of such conflicts, it seems
> appropriate not to use ext. as a prefix.
And if we have ext. as a prefix, exactly what prevents conflicts in the
second part of the name? Nothing, that's what. It's useless.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-01-04 19:09:29 | Re: [PATCH] Store Extension Options |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-01-04 18:47:29 | Re: [PATCH] Store Extension Options |