Re: Add minimal C example and SQL registration example for custom table access methods.

Thanks Robert for mentioning this! I indeed did not notice the switch.

> Nitpicking a little: your patch appears to change more lines than it does, because it added line breaks earlier in the lines. I would generally avoid that unless there's good reason to do so.

Thanks! I'm not sure why that happened since I normally run
fill-region in emacs and when I re-ran it now, it looked as it used
to. I've fixed it up in this patch.

> Perhaps you could provide a "see <xyz>" to point the reader finding your example where he could find these non-optional methods he must provide?

Since the responses were positive, I've taken the liberty to extend
the sample code by simply including all the stub methods and the full
struct. Marking which methods are optional and not.

If that looks like too much, I can revert back. Perhaps only
mentioning the struct like we do for the index AM here:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/index-api.html. However, as a
reader, I feel like the full stubs are a bit more useful.

Happy for feedback. Updated patch is attached.

Cheers,
Phil

On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 1:40 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 3:03 PM Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 8:29 PM Roberto Mello <roberto(dot)mello(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > Suggestion:
> > >
> > > In the C example you added you mention in the comment:
> > >
> > > + /* Methods from TableAmRoutine omitted from example, but all
> > > + non-optional ones must be provided here. */
> > >
> > > Perhaps you could provide a "see <xyz>" to point the reader finding your example where he could find these non-optional methods he must provide?
> > >
> > > Nitpicking a little: your patch appears to change more lines than it does, because it added line breaks earlier in the lines. I would generally avoid that unless there's good reason to do so.
> >
> > Hey folks,
> >
> > There is a previous patch [1] around the same topic. What about joining efforts on pointing these documentation changes to the proposed test module?
> >
> > [1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/46/4588/
>
> Looking over this thread, I see that it was moved from pgsql-docs to
> pgsql-hackers while at the same time dropping the original poster from
> the Cc list. That seems rather unfortunate. I suspect there's a pretty
> good chance that Phil Eaton hasn't seen any of the replies other than
> the first one from Paul Jungwirth, which is also the only one that
> didn't ask for anything to be changed.
>
> Re-adding Phil. Phil, you should have a look over
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAByiw%2Br%2BCS-ojBDP7Dm%3D9YeOLkZTXVnBmOe_ajK%3Den8C_zB3_g%40mail.gmail.com
> and respond to the various emails and probably update the patch
> somehow. Note that feature freeze is in 2 weeks, so if we can't reach
> agreement on what is to be done here soon, this will have to wait for
> the next cycle, or later.
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com