Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On 28 October 2014 17:06, Tom Lane <tgl@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