| From: | Isaac Morland <isaac(dot)morland(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: making EXPLAIN extensible |
| Date: | 2025-02-28 20:29:46 |
| Message-ID: | CAMsGm5fJJJPcK2TtAisFGqnTMPd6yquE7H7cUJ2+bppnxtn_xA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 at 15:09, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> One thing I am wondering is whether extensions should be required to
> prefix their EXPLAIN option with the extension name to avoid
> collisions.
>
> If two extensions happen to choose the same name, it won't be possible
> to use both simultaneously.
Could the call that processes the registration automatically prepend the
extension name to the supplied explain option name? So if extension X
registers option O it would be registered as X_O rather than returning an
error if O doesn't follow the proper pattern.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2025-02-28 20:32:06 | Re: making EXPLAIN extensible |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2025-02-28 20:24:56 | Re: Interrupts vs signals |