Re: Pluggable Indexes

None of this is Any of My Business any more, but

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 03:44:15PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:

> The patch takes special care to allow calls to the rmgr functions only
> from the startup process. The APIs are exactly like the indexams and
> *are* called only in specific ways, at specific times. At your earlier
> request I put in filters to prevent WAL inserts for plugins that didn't
> exist, ensuring that all WAL writes were crash recoverable.

I haven't even started to think about looking at the code, but I buy
Simon's argument here. The Pg project is at big pains to point out
how the extensible PL support and custom datatypes are such big
deals. So why is pluggable index support not also a good thing?

I take no position on the merits of the proposed patch, which I do not
pretend to understand. But it'd be nice to see opponents distinguish
beteween " bad idea in principle" and "bad idea in this case". If
you're arguing the former, clarifying why the analogies aren't
relevant would be helpful.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca