|From:||Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>|
|To:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Sequence Access Method WIP|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 05/13/2015 07:10 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Heikki, do you have time to go through this at this point?
I'm afraid I won't :-(. I did intend to, but looking at the calendar, I
won't have the time to review this thoroughly enough to commit. Sorry.
I haven't looked at the CREATE/DROP ACCESS METHOD FOR SEQUENCE syntax
patch at all yet.
We discussed using a single amdata column vs. any number of am-specific
columns. We settled on amdata, but I'm still not 100% convinced that's
the best approach. Just as a data point, this removes the log_cnt field
and moves it into amdata in a non-human-readable format. So for someone
who only uses the local seqam, this just makes things slightly worse.
For more complicated seqam's, it would be even more important to display
the state in a human-readable format. Perhaps it's OK that each seqam
provides its own functions or similar to do that, but I'd like to
revisit that decision.
I still don't like the serial_sequenceam GUC. Not sure what to do
instead. Needs some thought.
|Next Message||Simon Riggs||2015-05-13 11:12:56||Re: Sequence Access Method WIP|
|Previous Message||Heikki Linnakangas||2015-05-13 10:13:29||Re: Default Roles|