Re: Index AM API changes for deferability

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Index AM API changes for deferability
Date: 2009-07-15 06:08:50
Message-ID: 13888.1247638130@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> So, should we proceed assuming an index AM API change, or try to avoid
> it? If we should change the AM API, is Dean's API change acceptable?

There is no reason at all to avoid an index AM API change if one is
useful. If you look at the history, we tend to change that API every
release or two anyway.

Whether this particular design is good is a different question, and
I don't have time right now to think about that. But please don't
bend the system out of shape just to avoid an API change.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2009-07-15 07:03:20 Re: CommitFest 2009-07 is Now Closed
Previous Message Andres Freund 2009-07-15 06:06:48 Re: [PATCH 3/3] Document geqo_seed variable.