Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > Do we really need default_only entries in user-defined reloptions?
I think we don't, but I also think we don't need it at all even in the
core because it just set a few variables to the default values with
complex code flow. Could you explain why default_only entries idea is
better than adjusting those fields in the toast-specific codes?
It's my understanding that reloption-framework is just a tool to fill
reloption parameters, and it's not responsible for unused fields.
> > We have yet to see any indication that anybody is using user-defined
> > reloptions at all ... It'd be good to have an use case at least (if
> > only to ensure that the API we're providing is sufficient).
I use it my textsearch_senna extension :-).
But I don't need default_only entries at this time.
> I suggest that 9.0 would be a good time to add an "int flags" parameter
> to the add_xxx_reloption functions. The first flag could be
> default_only and we'd have room to add more later without another API
> break.
I agree the idea when we reach a conclusion to introduce default_only.
Regards,
---
Takahiro Itagaki
NTT Open Source Software Center