Re: Pluggable Indexes (was Re: rmgr hooks (v2))

Josh Berkus wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> > Plugability adds complexity. Heikki's comment is that adding this patch
> > make the job of creating pluggable indexes 5% easier, while no one is
> > actually working on plugable indexes, and it hard to say that making it
> > 5% easier really advances anything, especially since many of our
> > existing index types aren't WAL-logged. Plugability is not a zero-cost
> > feature.
>
> Right. And I'm saying that pluggability is PostgreSQL's main reason for
> existence, if you look at our place in the future of databases. So it's
> worth paying *some* cost, provided that the cost/benefit ratio works for
> the particular patch.
>
> To rephrase: I can't judge the rmgr patch one way or the other. I'm
> only objecting to the idea expressed by Heikki and others that pluggable
> indexes are stupid and unnecessary.

It is cost vs. benefit. No one is saying plugabiity is bad, only that
in this case it is more costly than beneficial; of course, that might
change some day.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +