On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 3:02 PM Phil Eaton <p...@eatonphil.com> wrote: > > I took a look at this patch and I don't think this is a very good > > idea, > > No problem! I've dropped the v2 code additions and stuck with the v1 > attempt plus feedback.
That looks more reasonable. I'd like to quibble with this text: +. Here is an example of how to register an extension that provides a + table access method handler: I think this should say something more like "Here is how an extension SQL script might create a table access method handler". I'm not sure if we have a standard term in our documentation that should be used instead of "extension SQL script"; perhaps look for similar examples, or the documentation of extensions themselves, and copy the wording. Shouldn't "mem_tableam_handler" be "my_tableam_handler"? -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
