| From: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Asim R P <apraveen(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: Pluggable Storage - Andres's take |
| Date: | 2019-01-22 10:01:18 |
| Message-ID: | CA+q6zcXeU1kLxd3yDEcF5WoO3jset2bystp2f5UYLYhah1rDTA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 3:01 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> The patchset is now pretty granularly split into individual pieces.
Wow, thanks!
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 9:33 AM Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Regression tests that use \d+ to show the table details might
> not be interested specifically in table access method. But these will
> fail if run with a modified default access method.
I see your point, but if a test is not interested specifically in a table am,
then I guess it wouldn't use a custom table am in the first place, right? Any
way, I don't have strong opinion here, so if everyone agrees that HIDE_TABLEAM
will show/hide access method unconditionally, I'm fine with that.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2019-01-22 10:16:02 | Re: PSA: we lack TAP test coverage on NetBSD and OpenBSD |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2019-01-22 09:47:54 | Re: speeding up planning with partitions |