Hi, Alexander On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 at 13:59, Pavel Borisov <pashkin.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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. > I added some changes in comments to better reflect changes in patch v2. See a patch v3 (code unchanged from v2) Regards, Pavel
v3-0001-Generalize-acquire_sample_rows.patch
Description: Binary data
