Re: Pluggable Indexes (was Re: rmgr hooks (v2))

Josh Berkus wrote:
> Bruce,
> 
> > Plugability adds complexity. Heikki's comment is that adding this patch
> > make the job of creating pluggable indexes 5% easier, while no one is
> > actually working on plugable indexes, and it hard to say that making it
> > 5% easier really advances anything, especially since many of our
> > existing index types aren't WAL-logged.  Plugability is not a zero-cost
> > feature.
> 
> Right.  And I'm saying that pluggability is PostgreSQL's main reason for 
> existence, if you look at our place in the future of databases.  So it's 
> worth paying *some* cost, provided that the cost/benefit ratio works for 
> the particular patch.
> 
> To rephrase: I can't judge the rmgr patch one way or the other.  I'm 
> only objecting to the idea expressed by Heikki and others that pluggable 
> indexes are stupid and unnecessary.

It is cost vs. benefit.  No one is saying plugabiity is bad, only that
in this case it is more costly than beneficial;  of course, that might
change some day.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +