Re: Feedback on table expansion hook (including patch)

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 10:19:17PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> (Sorry about being very late to this thread.)
> 
> > Would it be unreasonable of us to ask for a worked-out example making
> > use of the proposed hook?  That'd go a long way towards resolving the
> > question of whether you can do anything useful without duplicating
> > lots of code.
> >
> > I've also been wondering, given the table-AM projects that are
> > going on, whether we shouldn't refactor things to give partitioned
> > tables a special access method, and then shove most of the planner
> > and executor's hard-wired partitioning logic into access method
> > callbacks.  That would make it a lot more feasible for extensions
> > to implement custom partitioning-like behavior ... or so I guess.
> 
> Interesting proposition...
> 

Since there is no clear definition here, we seems to be expecting an
example of how the hook will be used and there have been no activity
since may.

I suggest we move this to Returned with feedback. Which I'll do in a
couple hours.

-- 
Jaime Casanova
Director de Servicios Profesionales
SystemGuards - Consultores de PostgreSQL