Re: patch - per-tablespace random_page_cost/seq_page_cost

On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I ended up not reusing the reloptions.c code.  It looks like a lot of
> extra complexity for no obvious benefit, considering that there is no
> equivalent of AMs for tablespaces and therefore no need to support
> AM-specific options.  I did reuse the reloptions syntax, and I think
> the internal representation could always be redone later, if we find
> that there's a use case for something more complicated.

a) effective_io_concurrency really deserves to be in the list as well.

b) I thought Tom came down pretty stridently against any data model
which hard codes a specific list of supported options. I can't
remember exactly what level of flexibility he wanted but I think
"doesn't require catalog changes to add a new option" might have been
it.

I agree that having everything smashed to text is a bit kludgy though.
I'm not sure we have the tools to do much better though.

--
greg