Re: Pluggable Indexes (was Re: rmgr hooks (v2))

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Bruce,
>>
>>> Plugability adds complexity. Heikki's comment is that adding this patch
>>> make the job of creating pluggable indexes 5% easier, while no one is
>>> actually working on plugable indexes, and it hard to say that making it
>>> 5% easier really advances anything, especially since many of our
>>> existing index types aren't WAL-logged. Plugability is not a zero-cost
>>> feature.
>>
>> Right. And I'm saying that pluggability is PostgreSQL's main reason for
>> existence, if you look at our place in the future of databases. So it's
>> worth paying *some* cost, provided that the cost/benefit ratio works for
>> the particular patch.
>>
>> To rephrase: I can't judge the rmgr patch one way or the other. I'm
>> only objecting to the idea expressed by Heikki and others that pluggable
>> indexes are stupid and unnecessary.
>
> It is cost vs. benefit. No one is saying plugabiity is bad, only that
> in this case it is more costly than beneficial; of course, that might
> change some day.

as I understand, there are already plans to utilize this feature. If so,
we need to be more attentive by now.

Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru)
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia
Internet: oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83