Re: Pluggable Indexes (was Re: rmgr hooks (v2))

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Pluggable Indexes (was Re: rmgr hooks (v2))
Date: 2009-01-21 23:02:35
Message-ID: 4977A98B.2080002@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

All,

I really don't see why we would object to making *anything* pluggable if
someone was willing to write the code to do so. For example, making
storage pluggable would allow PostgreSQL to achieve great new things on
new types of hardware. (yes, I have some idea how difficult this would be)

For that matter, our pluggable languages, operators, aggregates, and
UDFs are the mainsteam of PostgreSQL adoption -- and as hardware and
technology changes in the future, I believe that our database's
programmability will become the *entire* use case for PostgreSQL.

So I really can't see any plausible reason to be opposed to pluggable
indexes *in principle*. We should be promoting pluggability whereever
we can reasonably add it.

Now, like always, that says nothing about the quality of this particular
patch or whether it *really* moves us closer to pluggable indexes.

--Josh Berkus

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2009-01-21 23:06:44 Re: Pluggable Indexes (was Re: rmgr hooks (v2))
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2009-01-21 22:48:21 Re: Pluggable Indexes