Re: TABLESAMPLE patch is really in pretty sad shape
От | Petr Jelinek |
---|---|
Тема | Re: TABLESAMPLE patch is really in pretty sad shape |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 55A91BB5.9040209@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: TABLESAMPLE patch is really in pretty sad shape (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: TABLESAMPLE patch is really in pretty sad shape
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-07-16 17:08, Tom Lane wrote: > Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On 2015-07-16 15:59, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I'm not clear on whether sequence AMs would need explicit catalog >>> representation, or could be folded down to just a single SQL function >>> with special signature as I suggested for tablesample handlers. >>> Is there any need for a sequence AM to have additional catalog >>> infrastructure like index AMs need? > >> That depends on the route we will choose to take with the storage there. >> If we allow custom columns for sequence AMs (which is what both Heikki >> and me seem to be inclined to do) then I think it will still need >> catalog, plus it's also easier to just reuse the relam behavior than >> coming up up with something completely new IMHO. > > Hm. I've not been following the sequence AM stuff carefully, but if you > want to use relam to point at a sequence's AM then really sequence AMs > have to be represented in pg_am. (It would be quite broken from a > relational theory standpoint if relam could point to either of two > catalogs; not to mention that we have no way to guarantee OID uniqueness > across multiple catalogs.) > Well not necessarily, it would just mean that relam has different meaning depending on relkind so the OID uniqueness is not needed at all. > As things stand today, putting both kinds of AM into one catalog would be > pretty horrible, but it seems not hard to make it work if we did this sort > of refactoring first. We'd end up with three columns in pg_am: amname, > amkind (index or sequence), and amhandler. The type and contents of the > struct returned by amhandler could be different depending on amkind, which > means that the APIs could be as different as we need, despite sharing just > one catalog. The only real restriction is that index and sequence AMs > could not have the same names, which doesn't seem like much of a problem > from here. > Yes, this would be better. -- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: