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. ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov
v2-0001-Generalize-acquire_sample_rows.patch
Description: Binary data
