| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Access method extendability |
| Date: | 2014-10-28 17:51:24 |
| Message-ID: | 20141028175124.GE5873@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-10-28 13:37:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not at all sold on the idea that we need to support dropping AMs.
> I think it'd be fine to consider that installing an AM into a given
> database is a one-way operation. Then you just need to insert some
> pg_depend entries that "pin" the AM's individual functions, and you're
> done.
I think that'd be somewhat ugly. An extension adding such a AM would
then either actively need to block dropping (e.g. by pinned entries, as
you mention) or do rather odd things on recreation. I think that'd be
dropping our own standards.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2014-10-28 17:58:53 | Re: WIP: Access method extendability |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-10-28 17:51:21 | Re: WIP: Access method extendability |