On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Petr Jelinek wrote: >> On 2015-07-13 00:36, Tom Lane wrote: > >> >PS: now that I've written this rant, I wonder why we don't redesign the >> >index AM API along the same lines. It probably doesn't matter much at >> >the moment, but if we ever get serious about supporting index AM >> >extensions, I think we ought to consider doing that. >> >> +1 >> >> I think this is very relevant to the proposed sequence am patch as well. > > Hmm, how would this work? Would we have index AM implementation run > some function that register their support methods somehow at startup? > Hopefully we're not going to have the index AMs become shared libraries. >
I recall a proposal by Alexander Korotkov about extensible access methods although his proposal also included a CREATE AM command that would add a pg_am row so that perhaps differs from what Tom seems to allude to here. http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/capphfdsxwzmojm6dx+tjnpyk27kt4o7ri6x_4oswcbyu1rm...@mail.gmail.com Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
