| From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | 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 16:04:26 |
| Message-ID: | 55C8CB8A.1070808@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-08-10 17:47, Tom Lane wrote:
> Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 2015-08-10 16:58, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>>> That should work, thanks! Also we can have SQL-visible functions to get
>>> amsupport and amstrategies and use them in the regression tests.
>
>> SQL-visible functions would be preferable to storing it in pg_am as
>> keeping the params in pg_am would limit the extensibility of pg_am itself.
>
> I don't see any particularly good reason to remove amsupport and
> amstrategies from pg_am. Those are closely tied to the other catalog
> infrastructure for indexes (pg_amproc, pg_amop) which I don't think are
> candidates for getting changed by this patch.
>
Ok, in that case it seems unlikely that we'll be able to use pg_am for
any other access methods besides indexes in the future.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-08-10 16:08:20 | Re: WIP: Rework access method interface |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2015-08-10 15:59:36 | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |