Re: Anyone see a need for BTItem/HashItem?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Anyone see a need for BTItem/HashItem?
Date: 2006-01-16 21:21:50
Message-ID: 18241.1137446510@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 04:02:07PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
>>> If you cut it out, what will the "heap" and "index" access methods
>>> needed for SQL/MED use?
>>
>> What's that have to do with this?

> I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm mistaken, but this is a candidate
> for the spot where such interfaces--think of Informix's Virtual
> (Table|Index) Interface--would go.

Can't imagine putting anything related to external-database access
inside either the btree or hash AMs; it'd only make sense to handle
it at higher levels. It's barely conceivable that external access
would make sense as a specialized AM in its own right, but I don't
see managing external links exclusively within the indexes.

IOW, if we did need extra stuff in IndexTuples for external access,
we'd want to put it inside IndexTuple, not in a place where it could
only be seen by these AMs.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-01-16 21:46:43 Re: equivalence class not working?
Previous Message uwcssa 2006-01-16 21:19:59 equivalence class not working?