From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: per-column generic option |
Date: | 2011-07-12 12:19:52 |
Message-ID: | D60B6762-965A-4C86-93A9-1EECC29009C4@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:31 AM, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> (2011/07/11 10:21), Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Jul 9, 2011, at 10:49 PM, Alvaro Herrera<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>>> In short: in my opinion, attoptions and attfdwoptions need to be one
>>> thing and the same.
>>
>> I feel the opposite. In particular, what happens when a future release
>> of PostgreSQL adds an attoption that happens to have the same name as
>> somebody's per-column FDW option? Something breaks, that's what...
>>
>> Another point: We don't commingle these concepts at the table level.
>> It doesn't make sense to have table reloptions separate from table FDW
>> options but then go and make the opposite decision at the column
>> level.
>
> I'm afraid that I've misunderstood the discussion. Do you mean that
> per-table options should be stored in reloptions, but per-column should
> be separated from attoptions? (I think I've misread...)
No, I was arguing that they should both be separate.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-07-12 12:25:12 | Re: Patch Review: Bugfix for XPATH() if text or attribute nodes are selected |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-12 12:15:22 | Re: dropping table in testcase alter_table.sql |