From: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Modest proposal to extend TableAM API for controlling cluster commands |
Date: | 2022-06-16 00:21:56 |
Message-ID: | 48C6FAE2-3D25-4E50-A1B9-2237A9E05D41@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hackers,
While developing various Table Access Methods, I have wanted a callback for determining if CLUSTER (and VACUUM FULL) should be run against a table backed by a given TAM. The current API contains a callback for doing the guts of the cluster, but by that time, it's a bit too late to cleanly back out. For single relation cluster commands, raising an error from that callback is probably not too bad. For multi-relation cluster commands, that aborts the clustering of other yet to be processed relations, which doesn't seem acceptable. I tried fixing this with a ProcessUtility_hook, but that fires before the multi-relation cluster command has compiled the list of relations to cluster, meaning the ProcessUtility_hook doesn't have access to the necessary information. (It can be hacked to compile the list of relations itself, but that duplicates both code and effort, with the usual risks that the code will get out of sync.)
For my personal development, I have declared a new hook, bool (*relation_supports_cluster) (Relation rel). It gets called from commands/cluster.c in both the single-relation and multi-relation code paths, with warning or debug log messages output for relations that decline to be clustered, respectively.
Before posting a patch, do people think this sounds useful? Would you like the hook function signature to differ in some way? Is a simple "yes this relation may be clustered" vs. "no this relation may not be clustered" interface overly simplistic?
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Smith | 2022-06-16 00:37:09 | Re: tablesync copy ignores publication actions |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-06-15 23:58:03 | Re: Small TAP improvements |