On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 04:35:33PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > You made the v2 insert interface a requirement for all table AMs.
> > Should it be optional, and fall back to simple inserts if not implemented ?
>
> I tried to implement the APIs mentioned by Andreas here in [1]. I just
> used v2 table am APIs in existing table_insert places to show that it
> works. Having said that, if you notice, I moved the bulk insert
> allocation and deallocation to the new APIs table_insert_begin() and
> table_insert_end() respectively, which make them tableam specific.
I mean I think it should be optional for a tableam to support the optimized
insert routines. Here, you've made it a requirement.
+ Assert(routine->tuple_insert_begin != NULL);
+ Assert(routine->tuple_insert_v2 != NULL);
+ Assert(routine->multi_insert_v2 != NULL);
+ Assert(routine->multi_insert_flush != NULL);
+ Assert(routine->tuple_insert_end != NULL);
+static inline void
+table_multi_insert_v2(TableInsertState *state, TupleTableSlot *slot)
+{
+ state->rel->rd_tableam->multi_insert_v2(state, slot);
+}
If multi_insert_v2 == NULL, I think table_multi_insert_v2() would just call
table_insert_v2(), and begin/flush/end would do nothing. If
table_multi_insert_v2!=NULL, then you should assert that the other routines are
provided.
Are you thinking that TableInsertState would eventually have additional
attributes which would apply to other tableams, but not to heap ? Is
heap_insert_begin() really specific to heap ? It's allocating and populating a
structure based on its arguments, but those same arguments would be passed to
every other AM's insert_begin routine, too. Do you need a more flexible data
structure, something that would also accomodate extensions? I'm thinking of
reloptions as a loose analogy.
--
Justin
