On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 12:18 PM Emre Hasegeli <e...@hasegeli.com> wrote: > > In future we could have, for instance, LSM or in-memory B-tree or > > other index AM, which could use existing B-tree or hash opclasses. > > This would be easily possible with my patch: > > CREATE ACCESS METHOD inmemorybtree > TYPE INDEX HANDLER imbthandler > IMPLEMENTS (ordering); > > > But even now, we could use this decoupling to get rid of ugly > > btree_gist and btree_gin. And also solve the extensibility problem > > here. If an extension provides datatype with B-tree opclass, we > > currently can't directly use it with GiST and GIN. So, in order to > > provide B-tree-like indexing for GiST and GIN, an extension needs to > > explicitly define GiST and GIN B-tree-like opclasses. > > This would also be possible if we move btree_gist and btree_gin > support functions inside gist and gin access methods. The access > method support functions get the operator family. They can find which > access method this operator family belongs to, and call the > appropriate functions if it is "ordering".
Yes, that's it. That's quite an amount of work, but I think this would be a great illustration of the advantages of this decoupling. ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov
