From: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | WIP: Rework access method interface |
Date: | 2015-08-09 21:56:27 |
Message-ID: | CAPpHfdtLiSXmXk2b4tW+4+No_1-T0raO5fOYszhO6+Sn2Om+xw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hacker,
some time before I proposed patches implementing CREATE ACCESS METHOD.
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfdsXwZmojm6Dx+TJnpYk27kT4o7Ri6X_4OSWcByu1Rm+VA@mail.gmail.com
As I get from comments to my patches and also from Tom's comment about AM
interface in tablesampling thread – AM interface needs reworking. And
AFAICS AM interface rework is essential to have CREATE ACCESS METHOD
command.
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5438.1436740611@sss.pgh.pa.us
This is why I'd like to show a WIP patch implementing AM interface rework.
Patch is quite dirty yet, but I think it illustrated the idea quite clear.
AM now have single parameter – handler function. This handler returns
pointer to AmRoutine which have the same data as pg_am had before. Thus,
API is organized very like FDW.
However, this patch appears to take more work than I expected. It have to
do many changes spread among many files. Also, it appears not so easy to
hide amsupport into AmRoutine, because it's needed for relcache. As a
temporary solution it's duplicated in RelationData.
What do you think about this approach of AM interface rework?
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
aminterface-1.patch | application/octet-stream | 197.1 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2015-08-09 22:07:55 | Re: pgsql: Fix pg_dump to dump shell types. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-08-09 21:35:46 | Re: Precedence of standard comparison operators |