Re: Pluggable Storage - Andres's take

Hello.

(in the next branch:)
At Tue, 27 Nov 2018 14:58:35 +0900, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote in <080ce65e-7b96-adbf-1c8c-7c88d87eaeda(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
> Thank you for working on this. Really looking forward to how this shapes
> up. :)

+1.

I looked through the documentation part, as where I can do something.

am.html:
> 61.1. Overview of Index access methods
> 61.1.1. Basic API Structure for Indexes
> 61.1.2. Index Access Method Functions
> 61.1.3. Index Scanning
> 61.2. Overview of Table access methods
> 61.2.1. Table access method API
> 61.2.2. Table Access Method Functions
> 61.2.3. Table scanning

Aren't 61.1 and 61.2 better in the reverse order?

Is there a reason for the difference of the titles between 61.1.1
and 61.2.1? The contents are quite similar.

+ <sect2 id="table-api">
+ <title>Table access method API</title>

The member names of index AM struct begins with "am" but they
don't have an unified prefix in table AM. It seems a bit
incosistent. Perhaps we might should rename some long and
internal names..

+ <sect2 id="table-functions">
+ <title>Table Access Method Functions</title>

Table AM functions are far finer-grained than index AM. I think
that AM developers needs the more concrete description on what
every API function does and explanation on various
previously-internal structs.

I suppose that how the functions are used in core code paths will
be written in the following sections.

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center