On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 05:34:36PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: > I agree that a dummy AM would be good, but implementing even a dummy AM > is a fair amount of work.
Not much, honestly, the largest part being to document that properly so as it could be used as a template: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/YEXm2nh/5j5p2...@paquier.xyz > Also, there are many potential variations, so > we'd probably need several. Not so sure here. GUCs or reloptions could be used to control some of the behaviors. Now this really depends on the use-cases we are looking to support here and the low-level facilities that could benefit from this module (dummy_index_am tests reloptions for example). I agree that this thread is perhaps not enough to justify adding this module for now. > The table AM API is a work in progress, and I think it will be a few > releases (and require a few more table AMs in the wild) to really nail > down the API. Hard to say, we'll see. I'd like to believe that it could be a good to not set something in stone for that forever. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
