From: | Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Nikolay Shaplov <n(dot)shaplov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PROPOSAL] Move all am-related reloption code into src/backend/access/[am-name] and get rid of relopt_kind |
Date: | 2016-05-25 19:28:56 |
Message-ID: | CAFcNs+qOx1a6LqEMgJdrQN1MVgyiN6uKfSjoCc70h0JZYq_VYA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
> > В письме от 25 мая 2016 13:25:38 Вы написали:
> > > Teodor Sigaev wrote:
> > > > >This all should me moved behind "access method" abstraction...
> > > >
> > > > +1 relopt_kind should be moved in am, at least. Or removed.
> > >
> > > Hm, but we have tablespace options too, so I'm not sure that using AM
as
> > > abstraction level is correct.
> > We will use am for all indexes, and keep all the rest in relopotion.c
for
> > non-indexes. May be divided options catalog into sections one section
for each
> > kind.
>
> That makes sense. I can review the patch later.
>
> > And as I also would like to use this code for dynamic attoptions later,
I
> > would like to remove relopt_kind at all. Because it spoils live in that
case.
>
> As I remember, Fabrízio (in CC) had a patch for dynamic reloptions, but
> there was some problem with it and we dumped it; see
>
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFcNs+rqCq1H5eXW-cvdti6T-xo2STEkhjREx=OdmAkK5tiOOw@mail.gmail.com
> for previous discussion.
>
Yeah, and it was forked into other long discussion thread [1] that explain
the reasons to patch got rejected.
IMHO we need a way (maybe at SQL level too) to define and manipulate the
reloptions, and this way should cover all database objects. It isn't a
simple patch because we'll need introduce new catalogs, refactor and
rewrite a lot of code... but it should be a better way to do it. Anyway we
can start with your approach and grow it in small pieces. I have a lot of
ideas about it so I'm glad to discuss it if you want.
Regards,
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFj8pRCX_VDcSdbUmKNHhYr_-n_CtL84_7R+-bJ17HckT_mukw@mail.gmail.com
[2]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoZnFdqT2koTX38yJus3f_AviScLXawbmPdWxhyxRg_kEg@mail.gmail.com
--
Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL
>> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br
>> Blog: http://fabriziomello.github.io
>> Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello
>> Github: http://github.com/fabriziomello
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-05-25 19:48:53 | Re: statistics for shared catalogs not updated when autovacuum is off |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-05-25 19:26:44 | Re: Is the unfair lwlock behavior intended? |