| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: per-column generic option |
| Date: | 2011-06-27 18:05:23 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTi=LtNQCK3ARa4_aGzfE+Pzhw0AfVQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2011/6/27 Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>> * It might be an option to extend attreloptions, instead of the new
>> attfdwoptions.
>> Although I didn't track the discussion when pg_foreign_table catalog
>> that provides
>> relation level fdw-options, was it impossible or unreasonable to extend existing
>> design of reloptions/attoptions?
>> Right now, it accepts only hard-wired options listed at reloptions.c.
>> But, it seems
>> to me worthwhile, if it could accept options validated by loadable modules.
>
> IIRC someone has objected against storing FDW options in
> reloptions/attoptions, but I couldn't find such post. I'll follow the
> discussion again.
I think they should definitely be separate.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-06-27 18:06:35 | Re: generate_series() Interpretation |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-27 18:03:55 | Re: pg_upgrade defaulting to port 25432 |