On Mon, Apr 8, 2024, 19:08 Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2024-04-08 08:37:44 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2024-04-08 11:17:51 +0400, Pavel Borisov wrote: > > > On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 at 03:25, Alexander Korotkov <aekorot...@gmail.com> > > > > 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. > > > > I don't agree, that way lies an unmanageable API. To me the new API > doesn't > > look well polished either, so it's not a question of a smoother > transition or > > something like that. > > > > I don't think redesigning extension APIs at this stage of the release > cycle > > makes sense. > > Wait, you already pushed an API redesign? With a design that hasn't even > seen > the list from what I can tell? Without even mentioning that on the list? > You > got to be kidding me. >
Yes, it was my mistake. I got rushing trying to fit this to FF, even doing significant changes just before commit. I'll revert this later today. ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov
