Alexander Korotkov <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> writes: > OK. So, as we mentioned before, if we need to expose something of am > parameters at SQL-level then we need to write special functions which would > call amhandler and expose it. > Did we come to the agreement on this solution?
I think we were agreed that we should write functions to expose whatever needs to be visible at SQL level. I'm not sure that we had a consensus on exactly which things need to be visible. One thought here is that we might not want to just blindly duplicate the existing pg_am behavior anyway. For example, the main use of the amstrategies column was to allow validation of pg_amop.amopstrategy entries --- but in 4 out of the 6 existing AMs, knowledge of the AM alone isn't sufficient information to determine the valid set of strategy numbers anyway. So inventing a "pg_amstrategies(am oid)" function seems like it would be repeating a previous failure. Not quite sure what to do instead, though. We could imagine something like "pg_amstrategies(am oid, opclass oid)", but I don't see how to implement it without asking opclasses to provide a validation function, which maybe is a change we don't want to take on here. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers