| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: The plan for FDW-based sharding |
| Date: | 2016-03-05 04:12:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAMsr+YH1=3mESg-1qGExjaGBTx2tZyJiXr7GObi1FT24=0Tn7A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2 March 2016 at 00:03, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> True. There is an API, though, and having pluggable WAL support seems
> desirable too. At the same time, I don't think we know of anyone
> maintaining a non-core index AM ... and there are probably good
> reasons for that. We end up revising the index AM API pretty
> regularly every time somebody wants to do something new, so it's not
> really a stable API that extensions can just tap into. I suspect that
> a transaction manager API would end up similarly situated.
> <http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers>
>
IMO that needs to be true of all hooks into the real innards.
The ProcessUtility_hook API changed a couple of times after introduction
and nobody screamed. I think we just have to mark such places as having
cross-version API volatility, so you should be prepared to #if
PG_VERSION_NUM around them if you use them.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-03-05 04:17:51 | Re: The plan for FDW-based sharding |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-03-05 04:10:58 | Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive |