Re: [PATCH] Store Extension Options

Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-01-04 13:00:03 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Assuming that such examples are forthcoming, though, I think my main
>> objection to this proposal is the "ext." prefix, which seems precisely
>> 100% useless, not to mention inconsistent with the naming of custom GUCs,
>> which the same extension might well have some of.

> Well, the argument is/was that it avoid conflicts with future core code
> adding more namespaces - like the already existing toast. prefix. If we
> say we can live with the possibility of such conflicts, it seems
> appropriate not to use ext. as a prefix.

And if we have ext. as a prefix, exactly what prevents conflicts in the
second part of the name?  Nothing, that's what.  It's useless.
        regards, tom lane