| From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: TABLESAMPLE patch is really in pretty sad shape |
| Date: | 2015-07-16 14:02:06 |
| Message-ID: | CA+HiwqGBF+tCbv8_Q3HpRSpOkG45b6NovTPBjJ_qN+P7sj_CtQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Petr Jelinek wrote:
>> On 2015-07-13 00:36, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> >PS: now that I've written this rant, I wonder why we don't redesign the
>> >index AM API along the same lines. It probably doesn't matter much at
>> >the moment, but if we ever get serious about supporting index AM
>> >extensions, I think we ought to consider doing that.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I think this is very relevant to the proposed sequence am patch as well.
>
> Hmm, how would this work? Would we have index AM implementation run
> some function that register their support methods somehow at startup?
> Hopefully we're not going to have the index AMs become shared libraries.
>
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.
Thanks,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-07-16 14:06:10 | Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-07-16 13:59:01 | Re: TABLESAMPLE patch is really in pretty sad shape |