|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: TABLESAMPLE patch is really in pretty sad shape|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Hmm, how would this work? Would we have index AM implementation run
>> some function that register their support methods somehow at startup?
> I recall a proposal by Alexander Korotkov about extensible access
> methods although his proposal also included a CREATE AM command that
> would add a pg_am row so that perhaps differs from what Tom seems to
> allude to here.
I think we'd still need to invent CREATE AM if we wanted to allow index
AMs to be created as extensions; we'd still have to have the pg_am
catalog, and extensions still couldn't write rows directly into that,
for the same reasons I pointed out with respect to tablesample methods.
However, if the contents of pg_am could be boiled down to just a name and
a handler function, then that would represent a simple and completely
stable definition for CREATE AM's arguments, which would be a large
improvement over trying to reflect the current contents of pg_am directly
in a SQL statement. We add new columns to pg_am all the time, and that
would create huge backward-compatibility headaches if we had to modify
the behavior of a CREATE AM statement every time.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2015-07-16 14:22:08||Re: TABLESAMPLE doesn't actually satisfy the SQL spec, does it?|
|Previous Message||Amit Langote||2015-07-16 14:16:07||Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support|