On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com> writes: > 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?
No, because the proposal was to reduce pg_am to just amname, amkind (which would be something like 'i' or 's'), and amhandler. Everything specific to a particular type of access method would be shoved down to the level of the C APIs.
OK. So, as we mentioned before, if we need to expose something of am parameters at SQL-level then we need to write special functions which would call amhandler and expose it.
Did we come to the agreement on this solution?
> From a SQL standpoint it'd be > much nicer to have child tables, though that could potentially be faked > with views.
I've looked into having actual child tables in the system catalogs, and I'm afraid that the pain-to-reward ratio doesn't look very good.
Agree. Teach syscache about inheritance would be overengeneering for this problem.
