Re: Feedback on table expansion hook (including patch)

From: Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Erik Nordström <erik(at)timescale(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Feedback on table expansion hook (including patch)
Date: 2021-09-09 18:26:00
Message-ID: 20210909182600.GB6514@ahch-to
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 10:19:17PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> (Sorry about being very late to this thread.)
> > Would it be unreasonable of us to ask for a worked-out example making
> > use of the proposed hook? That'd go a long way towards resolving the
> > question of whether you can do anything useful without duplicating
> > lots of code.
> >
> > I've also been wondering, given the table-AM projects that are
> > going on, whether we shouldn't refactor things to give partitioned
> > tables a special access method, and then shove most of the planner
> > and executor's hard-wired partitioning logic into access method
> > callbacks. That would make it a lot more feasible for extensions
> > to implement custom partitioning-like behavior ... or so I guess.
> Interesting proposition...

Since there is no clear definition here, we seems to be expecting an
example of how the hook will be used and there have been no activity
since may.

I suggest we move this to Returned with feedback. Which I'll do in a
couple hours.

Jaime Casanova
Director de Servicios Profesionales
SystemGuards - Consultores de PostgreSQL

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2021-09-09 18:37:52 Re: missing warning in pg_import_system_collations
Previous Message Robert Haas 2021-09-09 18:21:14 Re: [Patch] ALTER SYSTEM READ ONLY