Re: Don't allocate IndexAmRoutine dynamically?

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> I think it might be worthwhile require that IndexAmRoutine returned by
> amhandler are allocated statically.

+1. Could only be an issue if somebody were tempted to have time-varying
entries in them, but it's hard to see why that could be a good idea.

Should we enforce this for *all* handler objects? If only index AMs,
why only them?

> It seems to me like there's not that many index AMs out there, so
> changing the signature of amhandler() to require returning a const
> pointer to a const object ought to both be enough of a warning, and not
> too big a burden.

One too many "consts" there. Pointer to const object seems fine.
The other part is either meaningless or will cause problems.

regards, tom lane