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

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Pluggable Indexes (was Re: rmgr hooks (v2))
Date: 2009-01-21 23:29:43
Message-ID: 4977AFE7.8020302@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce,

> Plugability adds complexity. Heikki's comment is that adding this patch
> make the job of creating pluggable indexes 5% easier, while no one is
> actually working on plugable indexes, and it hard to say that making it
> 5% easier really advances anything, especially since many of our
> existing index types aren't WAL-logged. Plugability is not a zero-cost
> feature.

Right. And I'm saying that pluggability is PostgreSQL's main reason for
existence, if you look at our place in the future of databases. So it's
worth paying *some* cost, provided that the cost/benefit ratio works for
the particular patch.

To rephrase: I can't judge the rmgr patch one way or the other. I'm
only objecting to the idea expressed by Heikki and others that pluggable
indexes are stupid and unnecessary.

--Josh

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2009-01-21 23:37:49 Re: Pluggable Indexes (was Re: rmgr hooks (v2))
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2009-01-21 23:08:52 Re: Lock conflict behavior?