Re: Table AM Interface Enhancements - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavel Borisov
Subject Re: Table AM Interface Enhancements
Date
Msg-id CALT9ZEGWWxtm4J1hkGYriiSHRHBuv8u7GDuf77nEva7irXa4Pw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Table AM Interface Enhancements  (Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Table AM Interface Enhancements
List pgsql-hackers
Hi, Nikita!

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 18:27, Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,

Pavel, as far as I understand Alexander's idea assertion and especially ereport
here does not make any sense - this method is not considered to report error, it
silently calls if there is underlying [free] function and simply falls through otherwise,
also, take into account that it could be located in the uninterruptible part of the code.

On the whole topic I have to 

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 4:56 PM Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, Alexander!
I'm planning to review some of the other patches from the current patchset soon.

I've looked into the patch 0003.
The patch looks in good shape and is uncontroversial to me. Making memory structures to be dynamically allocated is simple enough and it allows to store complex data like lists etc. I consider places like this that expect memory structures to be flat and allocated at once are because the was no need in more complex ones previously. If there is a need for them, I think they could be added without much doubt, provided the simplicity of the change.

For the code:
+static inline void
+table_free_rd_amcache(Relation rel)
+{
+ if (rel->rd_tableam && rel->rd_tableam->free_rd_amcache)
+ {
+ rel->rd_tableam->free_rd_amcache(rel);
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ if (rel->rd_amcache)
+ pfree(rel->rd_amcache);
+ rel->rd_amcache = NULL;
+ }

here I suggest adding Assert(rel->rd_amcache == NULL) (or maybe better an error report) after calling free_rd_amcache to be sure the custom implementation has done what it should do. 

Also, I think some brief documentation about writing this custom method is quite relevant maybe based on already existing comments in the code. 

Kind regards,
Pavel

When we do default single chunk routine we invalidate rd_amcache pointer, 
+ if (rel->rd_amcache)
+ pfree(rel->rd_amcache);
+ rel->rd_amcache = NULL;

If we delegate this to method, my idea is to check the method implementation don't leave this pointer valid.
If it's not needed, I'm ok with it, but to me it seems that the check I proposed makes sense.

Regards,
Pavel

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nikita Malakhov
Date:
Subject: Re: Table AM Interface Enhancements
Next
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences, take 2