Re: [rfc] overhauling pgstat.stat

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Satoshi Nagayasu wrote:
>
>> But, for now, I think we should have a real index for the
>> statistics data because we already have several index storages,
>> and it will allow us to minimize read/write operations.
>>
>> BTW, what kind of index would be preferred for this purpose?
>> btree or hash?
>
> I find it hard to get excited about using the AM interface for this
> purpose. To me it makes a lot more sense to have separate, much
> simpler code. We don't need any transactionality, user defined types,
> user defined operators, or anything like that.

+1.

But, would not rewriting a lot of existing functionalities potentially
lead to points of contention and/or much more effort?

Regards,

Atri
--
Regards,

Atri
l'apprenant