Hi Andrew, On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 10:33 PM Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 9:37 AM Rafia Sabih <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 at 04:32, Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2025-05-26 Mo 7:06 AM, Julien Tachoires wrote: >>> > 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+g...@mail.gmail.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. >>> > >>> >>> >>> This thread seems to have gone dormant, sadly. Here's a fresh attempt I >>> made (with assistance from Claude), before I was aware of the existence >>> of this and other efforts. I think it meets most of the previous >>> objections, and is in line with what we do for Index AMs. >>> >> I was testing this patch and found this issue, >> CREATE EXTENSION dummy_table_am; >> CREATE TABLE t (a int) USING dummy_table_am WITH (option_int = 42); >> ALTER TABLE t SET ACCESS METHOD heap; >> SELECT reloptions FROM pg_class WHERE oid = 't'::regclass; >> reloptions >> ----------------- >> {option_int=42} >> (1 row) >> ALTER TABLE t SET (fillfactor = 50); >> 2026-07-16 19:01:36.060 IST [95058] ERROR: unrecognized parameter >> "option_int" >> 2026-07-16 19:01:36.060 IST [95058] STATEMENT: ALTER TABLE t SET >> (fillfactor = 50); >> ERROR: unrecognized parameter "option_int" >> >> Basically, the option is left behind after changing the tableam to heap, I >> think that isn't intentional. >>> >>> >> > > > > Thanks for reviewing. Good catch! > > Basically the code had an early exit in the validation code that shouldn't > have been there. > > v2 attached with a fix for that, plus a regression test covering this > direction (dummy_table_am -> heap with a still-set AM-specific option), > which I verified fails against v1 and passes with the fix. I also > folded the two independent access-method-resolution code paths in > DefineRelation into one and added the new test module's typedefs to > typedefs.list > > cheers > > andrew >
I checked the usage of extractRelOptions, and found that in extract_autovac_opts, it unconditionally interprets the result as StdRdOptions, the patch doesn't seem to consider that, is that intentional? -- Regards Junwang Zhao
