Robert Haas escribió:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> > Robert Haas escribió:
> >
> >> I don't see anything in this code that is very rel-specific, so I
> >> think it would be possible to implement spcoptions by just defining
> >> RELOPT_KIND_TABLESPACE and ignoring the irony, but that has enough of
> >> an unsavory feeling that I'm sure someone is going to complain about
> >> it... I suppose we could go through and systematically rename all
> >> instances of reloptions to ent(ity)options or storageoptions or
> >> gen(eric)options or somesuch...
> >
> > Maybe I missed part of the discussion, but do these really need to be
> > handled like reloptions instead of like datoptions? Perhaps the
> > deciding factor is that we want to parse them once and store them in a
> > cache, so like reloptions; the others are used once per connection and
> > then thrown away.
>
> This may be a stupid question, but what are datoptions?
>
> $ git grep datoptions
datoptions are gone now, replaced by pg_db_role_settings, but you could
find them in 8.4. They were an array of options much like reloptions,
except that they didn't go through the reloptions.c code for parsing.
> > If this is the case, then I think we could just decide that their name
> > is reloptions due to hysterical reasons and be done with it.
>
> Yeah. It's particularly unfortunate that we call them "reloptions" in
> the code but "storage parameters" in the documentation. Neither is a
> particularly good name, and having two different ones is extra-poor.
> But I'm fine with leaving the names as they are and moving on, if no
> one objects too much. Speak now or don't complain about it after I
> write the patch!
Maybe after we move to Git we can rename them in the code?
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.