Re: Table AM Interface Enhancements

Hi, Pavel!

I've pushed 0001, 0002 and 0006.

On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 5:23 PM Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> I think for better code look this could be removed:
>> >vlock:
>> > CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
>> together with CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); in heapam_tuple_insert_with_arbiter placed in the beginning of while loop.
>
> To clarify things, this I wrote only about CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); rearrangement.

Thank you for your review of this patch. But I still think there is a
problem that this patch moves part of the executor to table AM which
directly uses executor data structures and functions. This works, but
not committable since it breaks the encapsulation.

I think the way forward might be to introduce the new API, which would
isolate executor details from table AM. We may introduce a new data
structure InsertWithArbiterContext which would contain EState and a
set of callbacks which would avoid table AM from calling the executor
directly. That should be our goal for pg18. Now, this is too close
to FF to design a new API.

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov