Re: Sequence Access Method WIP

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com>, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2016-01-29T22:59:52Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> writes:
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I'm thinking we'd do CREATE ACCESS METHOD foobar TYPE INDEX or something
>>> like that.
>
>> I would prefer "CREATE {INDEX | SEQUENCE | ... } ACCESS METHOD name HANDLER
>> handler;", but I don't insist.
>
> I think that Alvaro's idea is less likely to risk future grammar
> conflicts.  We've had enough headaches from CREATE [ UNIQUE ] INDEX
> [ CONCURRENTLY ] to make me really wary of variables in the statement-name
> part of the syntax.

Strong +1.  If we put the type of access method immediately after
CREATE, I'm almost positive we'll regret it for exactly that reason.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


Commits

  1. Add missing gss option to msvc config template