On 12 March 2014 22:58, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't like the idea of using reloptions to let people attach
> arbitrary unvalidated settings to tables.
I respect your opinion. If you disagree, don't use them. Same as is
possible for RULEs etc.
> I consider the way things
> work with GUCs to be a bug, not a feature, and definitely not
> something I want to propagate into every other area of the system
> where the underlying storage format happens to allow it.
Experience was that requiring validation made things more brittle,
which is why we relaxed things a few releases ago. Opinions are one
thing, experience is quite another.
> I kind of think that this is too half-baked for 9.4 and we ought to
> punt it to 9.5.
No, its fully functional, apart from the requirement for validation
which is imposed upon this patch.
I'm not sure why this is being blocked. This is a community
contribution that seeks to improve everybody's options. Blocking it
does *nothing* to prevent individual extensions from providing
table-level options - we give them freedom to do whatever the hell
they want. Validation is a pipe dream, not *ever* an achievable
reality. Blocking is just exercise of a veto for nobody's gain.
-- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services