| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Rework access method interface |
| Date: | 2015-08-25 16:16:18 |
| Message-ID: | 20150825161618.GA2912@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 8/25/15 10:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >I'm good with this as long as all the things that get stored in pg_am
> >are things that pg_class.relam can legitimately reference. If somebody
> >proposed adding an "access method" kind that was not a relation access
> >method, I'd probably push back on whether that should be in pg_am or
> >someplace else.
>
> Would fields in pg_am be overloaded then? From a SQL standpoint it'd be much
> nicer to have child tables, though that could potentially be faked with
> views.
The whole point of this conversation is that we're getting rid of almost
all the columns in pg_am, leaving only an "amkind" column and a pointer
to a handler function.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-08-25 16:16:30 | Re: Error message with plpgsql CONTINUE |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-08-25 16:13:20 | Re: WIP: Rework access method interface |