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

  1. Support CREATE ACCESS METHOD

  2. Restructure index access method API to hide most of it at the C level.