Re: [PATCH] Store Extension Options

Enviado via iPhone

> Em 02/01/2014, às 22:16, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> escreveu:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:19 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 2013-12-31 13:37:59 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>>> 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
>>
>> There is no existing mechanism to handle conflicts for GUCs. The
>> difference is that for GUCs nearly no "namespaced" GUCs exist (plperl,
>> plpgsql have some), but postgres defines at least autovacuum. and
>> toast. namespaces for relation options.
>
> I continue to think that the case for having this feature at all has
> not been well-made.
>

We can use this feature to store any custom GUC for relations, attributes and functions also.

Some use cases:
* extension options
* config for external apps (frameworks, third part software)

Comments?

Regards,

Fabrízio Mello