Re: Problemas with gram.y

"Jaime Casanova" <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 3/3/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I find the whole idea pretty ugly myself.

> why? if i can ask? you didn't seem upset with that in the thread

What's bugging me about it is that the proposed syntax wedges a bunch
of index-access-method-specific parameters into what ought to be an
access-method-agnostic syntax; and furthermore does it by adding more
grammar keywords, something we have far too many of already. There are
direct measurable costs to having more keywords, and the approach does
not scale up to allowing other index AMs to have other parameters that
might not bear at all on btree.

I don't object to the concept of providing some way of adjusting index
fill factors, but I'm not at all happy with doing it like this. I'd
like to see a design that has some extensibility to it.

regards, tom lane