| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Rework access method interface |
| Date: | 2015-08-10 16:16:21 |
| Message-ID: | 20150810161621.GC2441@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> There are a couple of other pg_am columns, such as amstorage and
> amcanorderbyop, which similarly bear on what's legal to appear in
> related catalogs such as pg_opclass. I'd be sort of inclined to
> leave those in the catalog as well. I do not see that exposing
> a SQL function is better than exposing a catalog column; either
> way, that property is SQL-visible.
If we do that, it doesn't seem reasonable to use the same catalog for
other things such as sequence AM, right? IMO it'd be better to keep the
catalog agnostic for exactly what each row is going to be an AM for.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2015-08-10 16:30:00 | Re: cache invalidation skip logic |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2015-08-10 16:14:48 | Re: GIN pageinspect functions |