On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Petr Jelinek <p...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Just as a note, CREATE SEQUENCE ACCESS METHOD already causes grammar > conflict now, that's why my proposal was different, I didn't want to > add more keywords. I think Alvaro's proposal is fine as well.
I missed your proposal, I guess, so please don't take as having any position on whether it's better or worse than Alvaro's. I was only intending to vote for the proposition that the type of access method should follow the name of the access method. > The other point is that we are creating ACCESS METHOD object so that's > what should be after CREATE. Agreed. > In any case this is slightly premature IMHO as DDL is somewhat unless > until we have sequence access methods implementation we can agree on, > or the generic WAL logging so that custom indexes can be crash safe. Generic WAL logging seems like a *great* idea to me. But I think it's largely independent from the access method stuff. If we have generic WAL logging, people can create WAL-logged stuff that is not a new access method. If we have access methods, they can create new access methods that are not WAL-logged. If we have both, then they can create WAL-logged access methods which of course is the payoff pitch, but I don't see it as necessary or desirable for the two systems to be tied together in any way. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
