| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fabrizio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Store Extension Options |
| Date: | 2014-01-05 19:52:44 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaN7ue5GNmLj4uo4Q6F5G0O0Qk-rbxQiQKvCZHaxn1C9w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I would suggest addressing Robert's concern about lack of error checking
> by refusing to allow a custom reloption to be set unless the relevant
> extension is loaded and checks it. Unlike the postgresql.conf problem,
> I don't see any very good use-case for allowing an unchecked ALTER TABLE
> to occur.
How do you plan to resolve the associated dump/restore hazard? AIUI,
that's why we allow people define any old this.that GUC that they want
without checking it - because the relevant shared library might not be
loaded at the time of definition, but only by time of use.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2014-01-05 20:10:46 | Re: [PATCH] SQL assertions prototype |
| Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2014-01-05 19:51:16 | Re: In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc. Michael Paquier |