| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Pluggable Indexes (was Re: rmgr hooks (v2)) |
| Date: | 2009-01-21 23:29:43 |
| Message-ID: | 4977AFE7.8020302@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--Josh
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-01-21 23:37:49 | Re: Pluggable Indexes (was Re: rmgr hooks (v2)) |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-01-21 23:08:52 | Re: Lock conflict behavior? |