Re: [HACKERS] Pluggable storage - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 5:46 PM, Alexander Korotkov
<a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 4:50 AM, Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have sent the partial patch I have to Hari Babu Kommi.  We expect that
>>> he will be able to further this goal some more.
>>
>>
>> Thanks Alvaro for sharing your development patch.
>>
>> Most of the patch design is same as described by Alvaro in the first mail
>> [1].
>> I will detail the modifications, pending items and open items (needs
>> discussion)
>> to implement proper pluggable storage.
>>
>> Here I attached WIP patches to support pluggable storage. The patch series
>> are may not work individually. Still so many things are under development.
>> These patches are just to share the approach of the current development.
>>
>> Some notable changes that I did to make the patch work:
>>
>> 1. Added storageam handler to the slot, this is because not all places
>> the relation is not available in handy.
>> 2. Retained the minimal Tuple in the slot, as this is used in HASH join.
>> As per the first version, I feel it is fine to allow creating HeapTuple
>> format data.
>>
>> Thanks everyone for sharing their ideas in the developer's unconference at
>> PGCon Ottawa.
>>
>> Pending items:
>>
>> 1. Replacement of Tuple with slot in Trigger functionality
>> 2. Replacement of Tuple with Slot from storage handler functions.
>> 3. Remove/minimize the use of HeapTuple as a Datum.
>> 4. Replace all references of HeapScanDesc with StorageScanDesc
>> 5. Planner changes to consider the relation storage during the planning.
>> 6. Any planner changes based on the discussion of open items?
>> 7. some Executor changes to consider the storage advantages?
>>
>> Open Items:
>>
>> 1. The BitmapHeapScan and TableSampleScan are tightly coupled with
>> HeapTuple and HeapScanDesc, So these scans are directly operating
>> on those structures and providing the result.
>
>
> What about vacuum?  I see vacuum is untouched in the patchset and it is not
> mentioned in this discussion.
> Do you plan to override low-level function like heap_page_prune(),
> lazy_vacuum_page() etc., but preserve high-level logic of vacuum?
> Or do you plan to let pluggable storage implement its own high-level vacuum
> algorithm?
>

Probably, some other algorithm for vacuum.  I am not sure current
vacuum with its parameters can be used so easily.  One thing that
might need some thoughts is that is it sufficient to say that keep
autovacuum as off and call some different API for places where the
vacuum can be invoked manually like Vacuum command to the developer
implementing some different strategy for vacuum or we need something
more as well.