On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 11:23 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > I suggest that we take the rmgr patch and combine it with getting WAL > working properly for Bitmap-on-disk and Hash indexes in 8.5. Having > this patch attached to an actual implementation will show if it's the > correct code to make building new types of indexes easier, or not, > rather than arguing about it in the abstract.
Your suggestion sounds reasonable and I thank you, but doesn't actually address the plugin discussion at all. It had absolutely zip to do with making building indexes easier; it was about enabling robust index plugins, period. (As well as other worthwhile use cases). It's not a cost benefit decision, its just "can we have it, or not?". The API *is* the right one because we already use it with at least 3 actual implementations. Will it change over time? Of course. We just "mulled it over" in great detail and it appears this was a popular feature with no technical problems mentioned about the patch. We almost never get 8 people speaking out clearly in favour of something. I'm too busy with Hot Standby to carry on this debate any longer, as everyone knows - though I think the various forms of filibustering need to stop. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
