On 2/26/15 4:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> On 02/26/2015 01:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> This patch decouples these three things so that they
>>> can changed freely -- but provides no user interface to do so. I think
>>> that trying to only decouple the thing we currently have in two pieces,
>>> and then have a subsequent patch to decouple again, is additional
>>> conceptual complexity for no gain.
>>
>> Oh, I didn't realize there weren't commands to change the LCO. Without
>> at least SQL syntax for LCO, I don't see why we'd take it; this sounds
>> more like a WIP patch.
>
> The reason for doing it this way is that changing the underlying
> architecture is really hard, without having to bear an endless hackers
> bike shed discussion about the best userland syntax to use. It seems a
> much better approach to do the actually difficult part first, then let
> the rest to be argued to death by others and let those others do the
> easy part (and take all the credit along with that); that way, that
> discussion does not kill other possible uses that the new architecture
> allows.
+1. This patch is already several years old; lets not delay it further.
Plus, I suspect that you could hack the catalog directly if you really
wanted to change LCO. Worst case you could create a C function to do it.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com