Re: WIP: Access method extendability
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>,
pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2014-10-28T17:51:24Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2014-10-28 13:37:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm not at all sold on the idea that we need to support dropping AMs. > I think it'd be fine to consider that installing an AM into a given > database is a one-way operation. Then you just need to insert some > pg_depend entries that "pin" the AM's individual functions, and you're > done. I think that'd be somewhat ugly. An extension adding such a AM would then either actively need to block dropping (e.g. by pinned entries, as you mention) or do rather odd things on recreation. I think that'd be dropping our own standards. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Commits
-
Support CREATE ACCESS METHOD
- 473b93287040 9.6.0 landed
-
Restructure index access method API to hide most of it at the C level.
- 65c5fcd353a8 9.6.0 cited