Re: WIP: Access method extendability

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 01:51:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 28 October 2014 17:06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> My own thought is that allowing external AMs is simply a natural
> >> consequence of PG's general approach to extensibility, and it would
> >> be surprising if we were to decide we didn't want to allow that.
>
> > If it wasn't clear from my two earlier attempts, yes, +1 to that.
>
> > I'd like to avoid all of the pain by making persistent AMs that are
> > recoverable after a crash, rather than during crash recovery.
>
> I think the notion of having AMs that explicitly don't have WAL support
> is quite orthogonal to what's being discussed in this thread. It might
> be worth doing that just to get the hash AM into a less-weird state
> (given that nobody is stepping up to the plate to fix it properly).
>
> regards, tom lane
>

Hi,

I think that someone is working on the hash index WAL problem, but are
coming up to speed on the whole system, which takes time. I know that
I have not had a large enough block of time to spend on it either. :(

Regards,
Ken