| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Ildus Kurbangaliev <i(dot)kurbangaliev(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods |
| Date: | 2020-11-24 17:15:42 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobTvecShXWyQ8Hdijc7mvU9hOGufNLAeisaJaxM61C7qg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 10:47 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> For the compression routine name, I did not include "Am" because
> currently, we are storing the compression method in the new catalog
> "pg_compression" not in the pg_am. So are you suggesting that we
> should store the compression methods also in the pg_am instead of
> creating a new catalog? IMHO, storing the compression methods in a
> new catalog is a better option instead of storing them in pg_am
> because actually, the compression methods are not the same as heap or
> index AMs, I mean they are actually not the access methods. Am I
> missing something?
Oh, I thought it had been suggested in previous discussions that these
should be treated as access methods rather than inventing a whole new
concept just for this, and it seemed like a good idea to me. I guess I
missed the fact that the patch wasn't doing it that way. Hmm.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2020-11-24 17:29:05 | Re: PoC/WIP: Extended statistics on expressions |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2020-11-24 17:08:57 | Re: POC: postgres_fdw insert batching |