On 2019-05-17 15:26:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > So I think this basically just doesn't work right now. I am > > sympathetic to Andres's position that we shouldn't go whacking the > > code around too much at this late date, and he's probably right that > > we're going to find lots of other problems with tableam as well and > > you have to draw the line someplace, but on the other hand given your > > experience and mine, it's probably pretty likely that anybody who > > tries to use tableam for anything is going to run into this problem, > > so maybe it's not crazy to think about a few last-minute changes. > > It seems to me that the entire tableam project is still very much WIP,
Agreed on that front. > and if anybody is able to do anything actually useful with a different > AM right at the moment, that's just mighty good fortune for them. I think this is too negative. Yes, there's a warts, but you can write something like zheap without tableam related code modifications (undo however...). You can write something like zedstore, and it will works, with a few warts. Yes, a bit of code duplication, and a few efficiency losses are to be expected. But that's different from it being impossible to write an AM. > "I can't do X in an external AM" is not a bug, not for v12 anyway. Indeed. Greetings, Andres Freund
