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 <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
