From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Store Extension Options |
Date: | 2013-12-31 16:03:33 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRBKS_zB6ioOPg+5eG04Qw-c3eiZPohb7-YCQzshNYxmjg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2013/12/31 Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>
>
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >
> > 2013/12/31 Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > 2013/12/31 Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Pavel Stehule <
> pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hello
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I am looking on this patch
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ALTER TABLE foo SET (ext.somext.do_replicate=true);
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Why is there fixed prefix "ext" ?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This feature is similar to attaching setting to function
> >> >> >
> >> >> > CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION ... SET var = ...;
> >> >> >
> >> >> > We can use someprefix.someguc without problems there.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> We use the prefix "ext" (aka namespace) to distinguish these options
> which are related to "extensions".
> >> >>
> >> >> Have you seen the previous thread [1] ?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > yes, but I don't understand why it is necessary? I use a analogy with
> custom GUC - and there we don't use similar prefix. Only any prefix is
> required - and it can contain a dot.
> >> >
> >>
> >> We use the namespace "ext" to the internal code
> (src/backend/access/common/reloptions.c) skip some validations and store
> the custom GUC.
> >>
> >> Do you think we don't need to use the "ext" namespace?
> >
> >
> > yes - there be same mechanism as we use for GUC
> >
>
> If we going to that way then we can expand the use of this patch to store
> custom GUCs to functions also, and we can wrote a function (like
> current_setting) to get specific GUC values, like:
>
> ALTER TABLE foo SET (myextension.option=on);
>
> SELECT current_setting('foo'::regclass, 'myextension.option');
>
I like it
Pavel
>
> Comments?
>
> --
> Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL
> >> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br
> >> Blog sobre TI: http://fabriziomello.blogspot.com
> >> Perfil Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello
> >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-31 16:36:36 | Re: Patch: show relation and tuple infos of a lock to acquire |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-12-31 14:34:07 | Re: Patch: show relation and tuple infos of a lock to acquire |