Re: Pluggable Storage - Andres's take

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Asim R P <apraveen(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Subject: Re: Pluggable Storage - Andres's take
Date: 2019-03-07 17:56:53
Message-ID: CA+TgmobyhKgHDfw2Rc6jbkMB6uep3PxfLHtqx82g4exM+=jg6Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 12:49 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2019-03-07 08:52:21 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 6:11 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > > slot that's compatible with the "target" table. You can get compatible
> > > slot callbakcs by calling table_slot_callbacks(), or directly create one
> > > by calling table_gimmegimmeslot() (likely to be renamed :)).
> >
> > Hmm. I assume the issue is that table_createslot() was already taken
> > for another purpose, so then when you needed another callback you went
> > with table_givemeslot(), and then when you needed a third API to do
> > something in the same area the best thing available was
> > table_gimmeslot(), which meant that the fourth API could only be
> > table_gimmegimmeslot().
> >
> > Does that sound about right?
>
> It was 3 AM, and I thought it was hilarious...

It is. Just like me.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2019-03-07 18:00:35 Re: Online verification of checksums
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2019-03-07 17:51:33 Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement