Re: tableam: abstracting relation sizing code

Hi,

On 2019-06-07 08:32:37 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 10:08 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> > "allvisfrac", "pages" and "tuples" had better be documented about
> > which result they represent.
>
> A lot of the table AM stuff (and the related slot stuff) lacks
> function header comments; I don't like that and think it should be
> improved. However, that's not the job of this patch. I think it's
> completely correct for this patch to document, as it does, that the
> arguments have the same meaning as for the estimate_rel_size method,
> and leave it at that. There is certainly negative value in duplicating
> the definitions in multiple places, where they might get out of sync.
> The header comment for table_relation_estimate_size() refers the
> reader to the comments for estimate_rel_size(), which says:

Note that these function ended up that way by precisely this logic... ;)

Greetings,

Andres Freund