Re: Anyone see a need for BTItem/HashItem?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Anyone see a need for BTItem/HashItem? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 18241.1137446510@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Anyone see a need for BTItem/HashItem? (David Fetter <david@fetter.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Anyone see a need for BTItem/HashItem?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 04:02:07PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes: >>> If you cut it out, what will the "heap" and "index" access methods >>> needed for SQL/MED use? >> >> What's that have to do with this? > I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm mistaken, but this is a candidate > for the spot where such interfaces--think of Informix's Virtual > (Table|Index) Interface--would go. Can't imagine putting anything related to external-database access inside either the btree or hash AMs; it'd only make sense to handle it at higher levels. It's barely conceivable that external access would make sense as a specialized AM in its own right, but I don't see managing external links exclusively within the indexes. IOW, if we did need extra stuff in IndexTuples for external access, we'd want to put it inside IndexTuple, not in a place where it could only be seen by these AMs. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: