2011/6/27 Shigeru Hanada <shigeru.han...@gmail.com>: >> * It might be an option to extend attreloptions, instead of the new >> attfdwoptions. >> Although I didn't track the discussion when pg_foreign_table catalog >> that provides >> relation level fdw-options, was it impossible or unreasonable to extend >> existing >> design of reloptions/attoptions? >> Right now, it accepts only hard-wired options listed at reloptions.c. >> But, it seems >> to me worthwhile, if it could accept options validated by loadable modules. > > IIRC someone has objected against storing FDW options in > reloptions/attoptions, but I couldn't find such post. I'll follow the > discussion again.
I think they should definitely be separate. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
