From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Nikolay Shaplov <n(dot)shaplov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [PROPOSAL] Move all am-related reloption code into src/backend/access/[am-name] and get rid of relopt_kind |
Date: | 2016-05-25 18:03:17 |
Message-ID: | 20160525180317.GA598084@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Nikolay Shaplov wrote:
> В письме от 25 мая 2016 13:25:38 Вы написали:
> > Teodor Sigaev wrote:
> > > >This all should me moved behind "access method" abstraction...
> > >
> > > +1 relopt_kind should be moved in am, at least. Or removed.
> >
> > Hm, but we have tablespace options too, so I'm not sure that using AM as
> > abstraction level is correct.
> We will use am for all indexes, and keep all the rest in relopotion.c for
> non-indexes. May be divided options catalog into sections one section for each
> kind.
That makes sense. I can review the patch later.
> And as I also would like to use this code for dynamic attoptions later, I
> would like to remove relopt_kind at all. Because it spoils live in that case.
As I remember, Fabrízio (in CC) had a patch for dynamic reloptions, but
there was some problem with it and we dumped it; see
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFcNs+rqCq1H5eXW-cvdti6T-xo2STEkhjREx=OdmAkK5tiOOw@mail.gmail.com
for previous discussion.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-05-25 18:09:43 | Re: Is the unfair lwlock behavior intended? |
Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-05-25 17:56:04 | Re: Inheritance |