Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Call RelationDropStorage() for broader range ofobject drops. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alexander Korotkov
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Call RelationDropStorage() for broader range ofobject drops.
Date
Msg-id CAPpHfds6c_a1kSL6u9B1_w3zJxYcoriQwVWpdCjc_CO6Qdih-g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Call RelationDropStorage() for broader rangeof object drops.  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Call RelationDropStorage() for broader range ofobject drops.  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
Hadi Moshayedi wrote:
> To provide more context, in cstore_fdw creating the storage is easy, we
> only need to hook into CREATE FOREIGN TABLE using event triggers. Removing
> the storage is not that easy, for DROP FOREIGN TABLE we can use event
> triggers.

This all sounds a little more complicated than it should ... but since
FDW are not really IMO the right interface to be implementing a
different storage format, I'm not terribly on board with supporting this
more completely.  So what you're doing now is probably acceptable.

+1,
FDW looks OK for prototyping pluggable storage, but it doesn't seem suitable for permanent implementation.
BTW, Hadi, could you visit "Pluggable storage" thread and check how suitable upcoming pluggable storage API is for cstore?

------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company 

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10(upgrading standby servers)
Next
From: Nico Williams
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] COMMIT TRIGGERs, take n, implemented with CONSTRAINT TRIGGERS