Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 10:47 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> For the compression routine name, I did not include "Am" because
>> currently, we are storing the compression method in the new catalog
>> "pg_compression" not in the pg_am. So are you suggesting that we
>> should store the compression methods also in the pg_am instead of
>> creating a new catalog? IMHO, storing the compression methods in a
>> new catalog is a better option instead of storing them in pg_am
>> because actually, the compression methods are not the same as heap or
>> index AMs, I mean they are actually not the access methods. Am I
>> missing something?
> Oh, I thought it had been suggested in previous discussions that these
> should be treated as access methods rather than inventing a whole new
> concept just for this, and it seemed like a good idea to me. I guess I
> missed the fact that the patch wasn't doing it that way. Hmm.
FWIW, I kind of agree with Robert's take on this. Heap and index AMs
are pretty fundamentally different animals, yet we don't have a problem
sticking them in the same catalog. I think anything that is related to
storage access could reasonably go into that catalog, rather than
inventing a new one.
regards, tom lane
