From: | Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Add test module for Table Access Method |
Date: | 2024-01-16 06:15:21 |
Message-ID: | ME3P282MB3166E4BA9602E4FFC977BE52B6732@ME3P282MB3166.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 at 13:15, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 10:28 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>>
>> Hmm. I'd rather have it do something useful in terms of test coverage
>> rather than being just an empty skull.
>>
>> How about adding the same kind of coverage as dummy_index_am with a
>> couple of reloptions then? That can serve as a point of reference
>> when a table AM needs a few custom options. A second idea would be to
>> show how to use toast relations when implementing your new AM, where a
>> toast table could be created even in cases where we did not want one
>> with heap, when it comes to size limitations with char and/or varchar,
>> and that makes for a simpler needs_toast_table callback.
>
> I think a test module for a table AM will really help developers. Just
> to add to the above list - how about the table AM implementing a
> simple in-memory (columnar if possible) database storing tables
> in-memory and subsequently providing readers with the access to the
> tables?
That's a good idea.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2024-01-16 06:17:35 | Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-01-16 06:11:48 | Re: heavily contended lwlocks with long wait queues scale badly |