Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs
Date
Msg-id 4fec5dfe3aa921db9fa2af000606bccb31774d5a.camel@j-davis.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
Responses Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2021-04-30 at 10:55 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-04-30 at 12:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > ISTM that would be up to the index AM.  We'd need some interlocks
> > on
> > which index AMs could be used with which table AMs in any case, I
> > think.
> 
> I'm not sure why? It seems like we should be able to come up with
> something that's generic enough.

Another point: the idea of supporting only some kinds of indexes
doesn't mix well with partitioning. If you declare an index on the
parent, we should do something reasonable if one partition's table AM
doesn't support that index AM.

Regards,
    Jeff Davis





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: .ready and .done files considered harmful
Next
From: ilmari@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker)
Date:
Subject: Re: PG in container w/ pid namespace is init, process exits cause restart