| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| 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 16:10:08 |
| Message-ID: | 16241.1439223008@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2015-08-10 17:47, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
I think that's likely for the best anyway; there are too many catalogs
that think a pg_am OID identifies an index AM. Better to create other
catalogs for other types of AMs.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2015-08-10 16:14:48 | Re: GIN pageinspect functions |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-08-10 16:08:20 | Re: WIP: Rework access method interface |