Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 18:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There are other recent examples of proposed hooks that in fact
>> failed to be useful because of some oversight or other, and it was
>> not until we insisted on seeing a live use of the hooks that this
>> became apparent.
> In the current case, index APIs are already well known, so that API is
> unlikely to be a problem. The actual "rmgr plugin" API is very simple,
> since its intention is only to add or edit entries onto the internal
> RmgrTable (in memory) after which everything is well defined already.
Right, the WAL-record-processing API is not really at issue, since it's
been proven internally to the core code. My concern is with the other
part, namely exactly how are we going to identify and install additional
rmgrs. There was substantial debate about that when it first came up,
so you're not likely to convince me that it's such an open-and-shut case
as to not need supporting evidence.
regards, tom lane
