Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 8/25/15 10:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >I'm good with this as long as all the things that get stored in pg_am
> >are things that pg_class.relam can legitimately reference. If somebody
> >proposed adding an "access method" kind that was not a relation access
> >method, I'd probably push back on whether that should be in pg_am or
> >someplace else.
>
> Would fields in pg_am be overloaded then? From a SQL standpoint it'd be much
> nicer to have child tables, though that could potentially be faked with
> views.
The whole point of this conversation is that we're getting rid of almost
all the columns in pg_am, leaving only an "amkind" column and a pointer
to a handler function.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
