On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 4:07 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > Yea, makes sense to me.
OK, done. Here's the remaining patches again, with a slight update to the renaming patch (now 0002). In the last version, I renamed toast_insert_or_update to heap_toast_insert_or_update but did not rename toast_delete to heap_toast_delete. Actually, I'm not seeing any particular reason not to go ahead and push the renaming patch at this point also. I guess there's a question as to whether I should more aggressively add "heap" to the names of the other functions in heaptoast.h, but I'm kinda "meh" about that. It seems likely that other AMs will need their own versions of toast_insert_or_update() and toast_delete(), but they shouldn't really need their own version of, say, toast_flatten_tuple_to_datum(), and the point there is that we're building a DatumTuple, so calling it heap_toast_flatten_tuple_to_datum() seems almost misleading. I'm inclined to leave all that stuff alone for now. 0001 needs more thought, as discussed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
v6-0002-Rename-some-toasting-functions-based-on-whether-t.patch
Description: Binary data
v6-0001-Allow-TOAST-tables-to-be-implemented-using-table-.patch
Description: Binary data
