From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: WIP: Rework access method interface |
Date: | 2016-01-17 16:11:23 |
Message-ID: | 2079.1453047083@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Shouldn't we try to move amhandler function as well along with
> amvalidate? I think moving each am's handler and validate into
> am specific new file can make this arrangement closer to what
> we have for PL's (ex. we have plpgsql_validator and plpgsql_call_
> handler in pl_handler.c and similar handler and validator functions
> for other languages in their corresponding modules).
I feel no great need to move the amhandler functions, and if we did,
I would not want to put them into the same files as the amvalidate
functions. As I said before, the latter are appendages to the AMs
that really don't have anything to do with the core index access code.
They require very different sets of #include files, for instance.
So I see the AMs as containing three separate subsets of code:
core index access/maintenance, amcostestimate, and amvalidate.
The second and third really need to be in separate files because of
#include footprint considerations, but the amhandler function can
perfectly well go in with the first group.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2016-01-17 16:16:57 | Re: Log operating system user connecting via unix socket |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2016-01-17 14:09:22 | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |