On 30 January 2016 at 13:48, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Petr Jelinek <p...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Just as a note, CREATE SEQUENCE ACCESS METHOD already causes grammar >> conflict now, that's why my proposal was different, I didn't want to >> add more keywords. I think Alvaro's proposal is fine as well. > > I missed your proposal, I guess, so please don't take as having any > position on whether it's better or worse than Alvaro's. I was only > intending to vote for the proposition that the type of access method > should follow the name of the access method. >
No worries didn't mean it that way. >> In any case this is slightly premature IMHO as DDL is somewhat unless >> until we have sequence access methods implementation we can agree on, >> or the generic WAL logging so that custom indexes can be crash safe. > > Generic WAL logging seems like a *great* idea to me. But I think it's > largely independent from the access method stuff. If we have generic > WAL logging, people can create WAL-logged stuff that is not a new > access method. If we have access methods, they can create new access > methods that are not WAL-logged. If we have both, then they can > create WAL-logged access methods which of course is the payoff pitch, > but I don't see it as necessary or desirable for the two systems to be > tied together in any way. Okay, I am only debating the usefulness of DDL for access methods in the current situation where we only have custom index access methods which can't create WAL records. In other words trying to nudge people slightly back towards the actual patch(es). -- Petr Jelinek 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
