On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 at 13:34, Alexander Korotkov <aekorot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 10:18 AM Pavel Borisov <pashkin.e...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 at 03:25, Alexander Korotkov <aekorot...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 12:40 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> > wrote: > >> > On 2024-03-30 23:33:04 +0200, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > >> > > I've pushed 0001, 0002 and 0006. > >> > > >> > I briefly looked at 27bc1772fc81 and I don't think the state post > this commit > >> > makes sense. Before this commit another block based AM could > implement analyze > >> > without much code duplication. Now a large portion of analyze.c has > to be > >> > copied, because they can't stop acquire_sample_rows() from calling > >> > heapam_scan_analyze_next_block(). > >> > > >> > I'm quite certain this will break a few out-of-core AMs in a way that > can't > >> > easily be fixed. > >> > >> 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. > > > > The patch v1-0001-Turn-back.. is mainly an undo of part of the > 27bc1772fc81 that had turned off _analyze_next_tuple..analyze_next_block > for external callers. If some extensions are already adapted to the old > interface functions, they are free to still use it. > > Please, check this. Instead of keeping two APIs, it generalizes > acquire_sample_rows(). The downside is change of > AcquireSampleRowsFunc signature, which would need some changes in FDWs > too. > To me, both approaches v1-0001-Turn-back... and v2-0001-Generalize... and patch v2 look good. Pavel.
