Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs
Date: 2021-05-03 21:03:31
Message-ID: 4fec5dfe3aa921db9fa2af000606bccb31774d5a.camel@j-davis.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 2021-04-30 at 10:55 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-04-30 at 12:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > ISTM that would be up to the index AM. We'd need some interlocks
> > on
> > which index AMs could be used with which table AMs in any case, I
> > think.
>
> I'm not sure why? It seems like we should be able to come up with
> something that's generic enough.

Another point: the idea of supporting only some kinds of indexes
doesn't mix well with partitioning. If you declare an index on the
parent, we should do something reasonable if one partition's table AM
doesn't support that index AM.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker 2021-05-03 21:13:29 Re: PG in container w/ pid namespace is init, process exits cause restart
Previous Message Robert Haas 2021-05-03 20:49:16 .ready and .done files considered harmful