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

From Alexander Korotkov
Subject Re: WIP: Rework access method interface
Date
Msg-id CAPpHfdssCtw1rB=UO62xqakZSy4kFeqZQvOy4x02xR1KjRK29g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP: Rework access method interface  (Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: WIP: Rework access method interface
Re: WIP: Rework access method interface
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 2015-09-25 17:45, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

I think the API of getOpFamilyInfo is a bit odd; is the caller expected
to fill intype and keytype always, and then it only sets the procs/opers
lists?  I wonder if it would be more sensible to have that routine
receive the pg_opclass tuple (or even the opclass OID) instead of the
opfamily OID.

I think "amapi.h" is not a great file name.  What about am_api.h?


Well we have related fdwapi.h and tsmapi.h (and several unrelated *api.h which also don't use "_" in the name) so amapi.h seems fine to me.

Makes sense. I leave it amapi.h.
 
I'm unsure about BRIN_NPROC.  Why did you set it to 15?  It's not
unthinkable that future opclass frameworks will have different numbers

The BRIN_NPROC should be probably defined in brin.c since it's only used for sizing local array variable in amvalidate and should be used to set amsupport in the init function as well then.

Problem is that in BRIN, access method use only first 4 support procedures. However, operator class can define more and call them from first 4 support procedures. That allows operator classes to re-use same support procedures and build additional levels of abstractions. I've declared BRIN_MANDATORY_NPROCS, and brinvalidate checks only their presence. We could check BRIN opclass more precisely, by introducing new support procedure for validation. I think it's a subject of a separate patch since it would change interface of BRIN.
 
of support procs.  For BRIN I'm thinking that we could add another
support proc which validates the opclass definition using the specific
framework; that way we will be able to check that the set of operators
defined are correct, etc (something that the current approach cannot
do).

As I said before in the thread I would prefer more granular approach to validation - have amvalidateopclass in the struct for the current functionality so that we can easily add more validators in the future. There can still be one amvalidate function exposed on SQL level that just calls all the amvalidate* functions that the am defines.

I agree about staying with one SQL-visible function.

Other changes:
 * Documentation reflects interface changes.
 * IndexAmRoutine moved from CacheMemoryContext to indexcxt.
 * Various minor formatting improvements.
 * Error messages are corrected.

------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
 
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Takashi Ohnishi
Date:
Subject: Connection string parameter 'replication' in documentation
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [DOCS] max_worker_processes on the standby