On 23.05.2013 19:10, Greg Smith wrote:
On 5/20/13 7:51 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
The way that MarkDirty requires this specific underlying storage
manager behavior to work properly strikes me as as a bit of a
layering violation too. I'd like the read and write paths to have
a similar API, but here they don't even operate on the same type
of inputs. Addressing that is probably harder than just throwing
a hack on the existing code though.
To be honest, I don't understand what you mean by that. ?
Let's say you were designing a storage layer API from scratch for
what Postgres does. That might take a relation as its input, like
ReadBuffer does. Hiding the details of how that turns into a physical
file operation would be a useful goal of such a layer. I'd then
consider it a problem if that exposed things like the actual mapping
of relations into files to callers.
Ok, got it.
What we actually have right now is this MarkDirty function that
operates on BufferTag data, which points directly to the underlying
file. I see that as cutting the storage API in half and calling a
function in the middle of the implementation.
Well, no, the BufferTag struct is internal to the buffer manager
implementation. It's not part of the API; it's an implementation detail
of the buffer manager.
It strikes me as kind of weird that the read side and write side are
not more symmetrical.
It might seem weird if you expect the API to be similar to POSIX read()
and write(), where you can read() an arbitrary block at any location,
and write() an arbitrary block at any location. A better comparison
would be e.g open() and close(). open() returns a file descriptor, which
you pass to other functions to operate on the file. When you're done,
you call close(fd). The file descriptor is completely opaque to the user
program, you do all the operations through the functions that take the
fd as argument. Similarly, ReadBuffer() returns a Buffer, which is
completely opaque to the caller, and you do all the operations through
various functions and macros that operate on the Buffer. When you're
done, you release the buffer with ReleaseBuffer().
(sorry for the digression from the original topic, I don't have any
problem with what adding an optional Relation argument to MarkBuffer if
you need that :-) )
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
