| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Rework access method interface |
| Date: | 2015-08-10 16:50:15 |
| Message-ID: | 17342.1439225415@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think that's likely for the best anyway; there are too many catalogs
>> that think a pg_am OID identifies an index AM. Better to create other
>> catalogs for other types of AMs.
> That means we won't be able to reuse pg_class.relam as a pointer to the
> AM-of-the-other-kind either.
Hm. So one way or the other we're going to end up violating relational
theory somewhere. OK, I yield: let's say that pg_am has amname, amkind,
amhandler, and nothing else. Then we will need SQL functions to expose
whatever information we think needs to be available to SQL code.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-08-10 16:50:17 | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |
| Previous Message | Geoff Winkless | 2015-08-10 16:46:50 | Re: Precedence of standard comparison operators |