>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:

 >> With the gutting of pg_am in 9.6, there seems to be no longer any
 >> way for a query of the system catalogs to discover any of the index
 >> capabilities that were formerly columns in pg_am (notably
 >> amcanorder, amcanorderbyop, amclusterable, amsearcharray,
 >> amsearchnulls).

 >> Am I missing something or is this a significant oversight?

 Tom> It's absolutely not an oversight.  We asked when 65c5fcd35 went in
 Tom> whether there was still any need for that information to be
 Tom> available at the SQL level, and nobody appeared to care.

Perhaps you were asking the wrong people?

 Tom> We could in theory expose a view to show the data --- but since a
 Tom> large part of the point of that change was to not need initdb for
 Tom> AM API changes, and to not be constrained to exactly
 Tom> SQL-compatible representations within that API, I'm disinclined to
 Tom> do so without a fairly compelling argument why it's needed.

It could easily be exposed as a function interface of the form
index_has_capability(oid,name) or indexam_has_capability(oid,name)
without any initdb worries.

That would surely be better than the present condition of being
completely unable to get this information from SQL.

Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to