Re: Reloptions for table access methods

On 1/7/21 2:32 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 6:44 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 2020-12-30 at 21:23 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> But you cannot seriously argue that a one line patch that changes
>>> user
>>> visible behavior can be acceptable in Postgres core without tests or
>>> docs or code comments.
>>
>> Often, good documented APIs come about after a few extensions gain
>> experience hacking things together using undocumented assumptions and
>> internal APIs. But in this case, extension authors have no opportunity
>> to hack in reloptions for a TableAM, because of this needless extra
>> check that my patch would eliminate.
>>
>> The patch does not have any user-visible impact. To have any effect, an
>> extension would need to use these internal APIs in a specific way that
>> is not documented externally. I see my tiny patch as a tiny improvement
>> to the backend code because it eliminates a useless extra check, and
>> therefore doesn't need much justification. If others see it as a burden
>> on the engine code, that's a different story.
>>
>> If we insist that this must be a fully-supported feature or nothing at
>> all, then I'll withdraw the patch. But I doubt that will result in a
>> proper feature for v14, it just means that when we do get around to
>> supporting extensible reloptions, there will be no hacks in the wild to
>> learn from.
>
> Thanks for the reply. I'm trying to get my head around this before a
> longer reply.

Simon, have you had time to formulate your thoughts on this patch?

Regards,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net