Re: Pluggable Indexes (was Re: rmgr hooks (v2))

On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 11:23 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:

> I suggest that we take the rmgr patch and combine it with getting WAL 
> working properly for Bitmap-on-disk and Hash indexes in 8.5.  Having 
> this patch attached to an actual implementation will show if it's the 
> correct code to make building new types of indexes easier, or not, 
> rather than arguing about it in the abstract.

Your suggestion sounds reasonable and I thank you, but doesn't actually
address the plugin discussion at all. It had absolutely zip to do with
making building indexes easier; it was about enabling robust index
plugins, period. (As well as other worthwhile use cases). It's not a
cost benefit decision, its just "can we have it, or not?". The API *is*
the right one because we already use it with at least 3 actual
implementations. Will it change over time? Of course.

We just "mulled it over" in great detail and it appears this was a
popular feature with no technical problems mentioned about the patch. We
almost never get 8 people speaking out clearly in favour of something.

I'm too busy with Hot Standby to carry on this debate any longer, as
everyone knows - though I think the various forms of filibustering need
to stop.

-- Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support