On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 01:51:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 28 October 2014 17:06, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> My own thought is that allowing external AMs is simply a natural > >> consequence of PG's general approach to extensibility, and it would > >> be surprising if we were to decide we didn't want to allow that. > > > If it wasn't clear from my two earlier attempts, yes, +1 to that. > > > I'd like to avoid all of the pain by making persistent AMs that are > > recoverable after a crash, rather than during crash recovery. > > I think the notion of having AMs that explicitly don't have WAL support > is quite orthogonal to what's being discussed in this thread. It might > be worth doing that just to get the hash AM into a less-weird state > (given that nobody is stepping up to the plate to fix it properly). > > regards, tom lane >
Hi, I think that someone is working on the hash index WAL problem, but are coming up to speed on the whole system, which takes time. I know that I have not had a large enough block of time to spend on it either. :( Regards, Ken -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
