On 18 November 2013 07:50, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote:
> It doesn't go far enough, it's still too *low*-level. The sequence AM > implementation shouldn't need to have direct access to the buffer page at > all. > I don't think the sequence AM should be in control of 'cached'. The caching > is done outside the AM. And log_cnt probably should be passed to the _alloc > function directly as an argument, ie. the server code asks the AM to > allocate N new values in one call. I can't see what the rationale of your arguments is. All index Ams write WAL and control buffer locking etc.. Do you have a new use case that shows why changes should happen? We can't just redesign things based upon arbitrary decisions about what things should or should not be possible via the API. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
