Re: Sequence Access Method WIP

From: Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Sequence Access Method WIP
Date: 2016-02-16 12:58:48
Message-ID: CAPpHfdvRsfqe+aPvxYvSNJUvuXEbS6FOQdcZzGOAgVWjC23Z4g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> On 29 January 2016 at 23:59, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
> >>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Alvaro Herrera <
> alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> I'm thinking we'd do CREATE ACCESS METHOD foobar TYPE INDEX or
> something
> >>>> like that.
> >>
> >>> I would prefer "CREATE {INDEX | SEQUENCE | ... } ACCESS METHOD name
> HANDLER
> >>> handler;", but I don't insist.
> >>
> >> I think that Alvaro's idea is less likely to risk future grammar
> >> conflicts. We've had enough headaches from CREATE [ UNIQUE ] INDEX
> >> [ CONCURRENTLY ] to make me really wary of variables in the
> statement-name
> >> part of the syntax.
> >
> > Strong +1. If we put the type of access method immediately after
> > CREATE, I'm almost positive we'll regret it for exactly that reason.
> >
>
> Just as a note, CREATE SEQUENCE ACCESS METHOD already causes grammar
> conflict now, that's why my proposal was different, I didn't want to
> add more keywords. I think Alvaro's proposal is fine as well.
>
> The other point is that we are creating ACCESS METHOD object so that's
> what should be after CREATE.
>
> In any case this is slightly premature IMHO as DDL is somewhat unless
> until we have sequence access methods implementation we can agree on,
> or the generic WAL logging so that custom indexes can be crash safe.

I've changed syntax of CREATE ACCESS METHOD syntax in the thread about
index access method extendability.
Now it is "CREATE ACCESS METHOD name TYPE INDEX HANDLER handler;". New
column amtype of pg_am stores access method type.
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfdu9gLN7kuicweGsp50CaAMWx8Q-JWzbPehc92rvFHzkeg@mail.gmail.com
It could be easily extended to "CREATE ACCESS METHOD name TYPE SEQUENCE
HANDLER handler;".

------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Raiskup 2016-02-16 13:01:37 Re: [HACKERS] Packaging of postgresql-jdbc
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-02-16 12:57:02 Re: Declarative partitioning