| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(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: | 2011-07-11 01:21:19 |
| Message-ID: | 624F0D91-1E58-401D-A62C-F51DDDFDF671@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2011-07-11 01:26:44 | Re: Cascade replication |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-11 01:08:19 | Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks, v4 |