Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 2015-07-13 00:36, Tom Lane wrote: > >PS: now that I've written this rant, I wonder why we don't redesign the > >index AM API along the same lines. It probably doesn't matter much at > >the moment, but if we ever get serious about supporting index AM > >extensions, I think we ought to consider doing that. > > +1 > > I think this is very relevant to the proposed sequence am patch as well.
Hmm, how would this work? Would we have index AM implementation run some function that register their support methods somehow at startup? Hopefully we're not going to have the index AMs become shared libraries. In any case, if indexes AMs and sequence AMs go this route, that probably means the column store AM we're working on will probably have to go the same route too. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, 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
