| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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 16:20:13 |
| Message-ID: | 5064.1440519613@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> writes:
> 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?
No, because the proposal was to reduce pg_am to just amname, amkind
(which would be something like 'i' or 's'), and amhandler. Everything
specific to a particular type of access method would be shoved down to
the level of the C APIs.
> From a SQL standpoint it'd be
> much nicer to have child tables, though that could potentially be faked
> with views.
I've looked into having actual child tables in the system catalogs, and
I'm afraid that the pain-to-reward ratio doesn't look very good.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-08-25 16:23:53 | Re: Error message with plpgsql CONTINUE |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-08-25 16:16:30 | Re: Error message with plpgsql CONTINUE |