Jim Nasby wrote: > 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? From a SQL standpoint it'd be much > nicer to have child tables, though that could potentially be faked with > views.
The whole point of this conversation is that we're getting rid of almost all the columns in pg_am, leaving only an "amkind" column and a pointer to a handler function. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
