Re: WIP: Rework access method interface - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: WIP: Rework access method interface
Date
Msg-id 2079.1453047083@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP: Rework access method interface  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
> Shouldn't we try to move amhandler function as well along with
> amvalidate?  I think moving each am's handler and validate into
> am specific new file can make this arrangement closer to what
> we have for PL's (ex. we have plpgsql_validator and plpgsql_call_
> handler in pl_handler.c and similar handler and validator functions
> for other languages in their corresponding modules).

I feel no great need to move the amhandler functions, and if we did,
I would not want to put them into the same files as the amvalidate
functions.  As I said before, the latter are appendages to the AMs
that really don't have anything to do with the core index access code.
They require very different sets of #include files, for instance.

So I see the AMs as containing three separate subsets of code:
core index access/maintenance, amcostestimate, and amvalidate.
The second and third really need to be in separate files because of
#include footprint considerations, but the amhandler function can
perfectly well go in with the first group.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: Log operating system user connecting via unix socket