Re: Allow table AMs to define their own reloptions

From: Julien Tachoires <julien(at)tachoires(dot)me>
To: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Allow table AMs to define their own reloptions
Date: 2025-05-26 11:06:19
Message-ID: 20250526110619.oepaf5dbzq3hjuij@poseidon.home.virt
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 08:46:01AM +0100, Julien Tachoires wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2025 at 02:23:54PM +0100, Julien Tachoires wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 02, 2025 at 09:56:41AM +0100, Julien Tachoires wrote:
> > > With the help of the new TAM routine 'relation_options', table access
> > > methods can with this patch define their own reloptions
> > > parser/validator.
> > >
> > > These reloptions can be set via the following commands:
> > > 1. CREATE TABLE ... USING table_am
> > > WITH (option1='value1', option2='value2');
> > > 2. ALTER TABLE ...
> > > SET (option1 'value1', option2 'value2');
> > > 3. ALTER TABLE ... SET ACCESS METHOD table_am
> > > OPTIONS (option1 'value1', option2 'value2');
> > >
> > > When changing table's access method, the settings inherited from the
> > > former TAM can be dropped (if not supported by the new TAM) via: DROP
> > > option, or, updated via: SET option 'value'.
> > >
> > > Currently, tables using different TAMs than heap are able to use heap's
> > > reloptions (fillfactor, toast_tuple_target, etc...). With this patch
> > > applied, this is not the case anymore: if the TAM needs to have access
> > > to similar settings to heap ones, they have to explicitly define them.
> > >
> > > The 2nd patch file includes a new test module 'dummy_table_am' which
> > > implements a dummy table access method utilized to exercise TAM
> > > reloptions. This test module is strongly based on what we already have
> > > in 'dummy_index_am'. 'dummy_table_am' provides a complete example of TAM
> > > reloptions definition.
> > >
> > > This work is directly derived from SadhuPrasad's patch here [2]. Others
> > > attempts were posted here [1] and here [3].
> > >
> > > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/429fb58fa3218221bb17c7bf9e70e1aa6cfc6b5d.camel%40j-davis.com
> > > [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAFF0-CG4KZHdtYHMsonWiXNzj16gWZpduXAn8yF7pDDub+GQMg(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com
> > > [3] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/AMUA1wBBBxfc3tKRLLdU64rb.1.1683276279979.Hmail.wuhao%40hashdata.cn
> >
> > Please find a new version including minor fixes: 'TAM' terms are
> > replaced by 'table AM'
>
> Please find a new rebased version.

New rebased version.

--
Julien Tachoires

Attachment Content-Type Size
v4-0001-Allow-table-AMs-to-define-their-own-reloptions.patch text/x-diff 25.0 KB
v4-0002-Add-the-dummy_table_am-test-module.patch text/x-diff 33.1 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Shubhankar Anand Kulkarni 2025-05-26 11:28:12 Re: Expression push down from Join Node to below node.
Previous Message Dean Rasheed 2025-05-26 11:03:46 Re: MERGE issues around inheritance