On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 2:56 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
>> So there is a couple of patches. They do not cover all mentioned problems,
>> but I'd like to get a feedback before continuing.
>
> I agree that we could improve things in this general area, but I do not
> endorse any particular changes you propose in these patches; I haven't
> reviewed your patches.
Well, I am interested in the topic. And just had a look at the patches proposed.
+ /*
+ * Split PageGetItem into set of different macros
+ * in order to make code more readable.
+ */
+#define PageGetItemHeap(page, itemId) \
+( \
+ AssertMacro(PageIsValid(page)), \
+ AssertMacro(ItemIdHasStorage(itemId)), \
+ (HeapTupleHeader)(((char *)(page)) + ItemIdGetOffset(itemId)) \
+)
Placing into bufpage.h macros that are specific to heap and indexes is
not that much a good idea. I'd suggest having the heap ones in
heapam.h, and the index ones in a more generic place, as
src/access/common as already mentioned by Alvaro.
+ onpage_tup = PageGetItemHeapHeaderOnly(page, newitemid);
Just PageGetItemHeapHeader would be fine.
@@ -2324,7 +2087,6 @@ FreeBulkInsertState(BulkInsertState bistate) pfree(bistate);}
-/* * heap_insert - insert tuple into a heap
Those patches have some noise.
Patch 0002 is doing two things: reorganizing the order of the routines
in heapam.c and move some routines from heapam.c to hio.c. Those two
could be separate patches/
If the final result is to be able to extend custom AMs for tables, we
should have a structure like src/access/common/index.c,
src/access/common/table.c and src/access/common/relation.c for
example, and have headers dedicated to them. But yes, there is
definitely a lot of room for refactoring as we are aiming, at least I
guess so, at having more various code paths for access methods.
--
Michael
