On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 6:44 PM Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-12-30 at 21:23 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > > But you cannot seriously argue that a one line patch that changes > > user > > visible behavior can be acceptable in Postgres core without tests or > > docs or code comments. > > Hi Simon, > > Often, good documented APIs come about after a few extensions gain > experience hacking things together using undocumented assumptions and > internal APIs. But in this case, extension authors have no opportunity > to hack in reloptions for a TableAM, because of this needless extra > check that my patch would eliminate. > > The patch does not have any user-visible impact. To have any effect, an > extension would need to use these internal APIs in a specific way that > is not documented externally. I see my tiny patch as a tiny improvement > to the backend code because it eliminates a useless extra check, and > therefore doesn't need much justification. If others see it as a burden > on the engine code, that's a different story. > > If we insist that this must be a fully-supported feature or nothing at > all, then I'll withdraw the patch. But I doubt that will result in a > proper feature for v14, it just means that when we do get around to > supporting extensible reloptions, there will be no hacks in the wild to > learn from.
Thanks for the reply. I'm trying to get my head around this before a longer reply. -- Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
