Re: WIP: Rework access method interface

On 2015-09-20 16:17, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com
>
> Hmm, we might want these functons in any case (although I think just
> one function which would return all am params would be better).
>
> But why is it not evident? We do the validations in regression
> tests, even if we just copy those then it's enough for a start
>
>
> The reason is that those validations were used only in regression tests
> yet. It wasn't used for user-defined operator classes. User might define
> invalid opclass and then alter it to valid. Or user might upgrade
> opclass in two steps where intermediate step is invalid. This is why I
> think validating opclasses in CREATE/ALTER command is not evident since
> it changes user visible behavior and compatibility.
> Simultaneously, implementing new API function just for regression tests
> doesn't seem to worth it for me.
>

I think it's ok to not do automatic validation during CREATE/ALTER just
yet. And I also think it's much worse to implement a SQL API which
exposes internals just for regression tests than having a C API just for
regression tests. The reason for moving AM to C API was to have less of
the internals exposed at SQL level afaik.

--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services