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 19:23:11 |
Message-ID: | 412.1388863391@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 14:06:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
> Uh? We are certainly not going to add core code that defines relation
> options with ext. in the name like we've introduced toast.fillfactor et
> al?
If this feature is of any use, surely we should assume that more than
one extension will use it. If those extensions are separately developed,
there's nothing preventing name conflicts. I would rank the odds of
two people writing "my_replication_extension" a lot higher than the odds
of the core code deciding to use such a prefix.
What's more, what happens if we decide to migrate some such extension
into core? A hard and fast division between names allowed to external
and internal features is just going to bite us on the rear eventually.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | knizhnik | 2014-01-04 20:27:13 | Re: [ANNOUNCE] IMCS: In Memory Columnar Store for PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-01-04 19:11:37 | Re: [ANNOUNCE] IMCS: In Memory Columnar Store for PostgreSQL |