Re: Table AM Interface Enhancements

On Mon, Apr 8, 2024, 19:08 Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:

> On 2024-04-08 08:37:44 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2024-04-08 11:17:51 +0400, Pavel Borisov wrote:
> > > On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 at 03:25, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>
> > > > I was under the impression there are not so many out-of-core table
> > > > AMs, which have non-dummy analysis implementations. And even if
> there
> > > > are some, duplicating acquire_sample_rows() isn't a big deal.
> > > >
> > > > But given your feedback, I'd like to propose to keep both options
> > > > open. Turn back the block-level API for analyze, but let table-AM
> > > > implement its own analyze function. Then existing out-of-core AMs
> > > > wouldn't need to do anything (or probably just set the new API method
> > > > to NULL).
> > > >
> > > I think that providing both new and old interface functions for
> block-based
> > > and non-block based custom am is an excellent compromise.
> >
> > I don't agree, that way lies an unmanageable API. To me the new API
> doesn't
> > look well polished either, so it's not a question of a smoother
> transition or
> > something like that.
> >
> > I don't think redesigning extension APIs at this stage of the release
> cycle
> > makes sense.
>
> Wait, you already pushed an API redesign? With a design that hasn't even
> seen
> the list from what I can tell? Without even mentioning that on the list?
> You
> got to be kidding me.
>

Yes, it was my mistake. I got rushing trying to fit this to FF, even doing
significant changes just before commit.
I'll revert this later today.

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov