| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Anyone see a need for BTItem/HashItem? |
| Date: | 2006-01-16 21:21:50 |
| Message-ID: | 18241.1137446510@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 04:02:07PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
>>> If you cut it out, what will the "heap" and "index" access methods
>>> needed for SQL/MED use?
>>
>> What's that have to do with this?
> I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm mistaken, but this is a candidate
> for the spot where such interfaces--think of Informix's Virtual
> (Table|Index) Interface--would go.
Can't imagine putting anything related to external-database access
inside either the btree or hash AMs; it'd only make sense to handle
it at higher levels. It's barely conceivable that external access
would make sense as a specialized AM in its own right, but I don't
see managing external links exclusively within the indexes.
IOW, if we did need extra stuff in IndexTuples for external access,
we'd want to put it inside IndexTuple, not in a place where it could
only be seen by these AMs.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-01-16 21:46:43 | Re: equivalence class not working? |
| Previous Message | uwcssa | 2006-01-16 21:19:59 | equivalence class not working? |