Re: Anyone see a need for BTItem/HashItem?

From: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Anyone see a need for BTItem/HashItem?
Date: 2006-01-16 21:08:19
Message-ID: 20060116210819.GF14577@fetter.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 04:02:07PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 03:52:01PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Does anyone see a reason to keep this layer of struct
> >> definitions?
>
> > 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.

Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter david(at)fetter(dot)org http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message uwcssa 2006-01-16 21:19:59 equivalence class not working?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-01-16 21:04:58 Re: [HACKERS] message for constraint