Re: Add minimal C example and SQL registration example for custom table access methods.
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, passed Implements feature: not tested Spec compliant: not tested Documentation:tested, passed Hello, I've reviewed your patch and it applies correctly and the documentation builds without any error. The built documentation also looks good with no formatting errors. It's always great to see more examples when reading through documentation so I think this patch is a good addition. thanks, --- Tristen Raab Highgo Software Canada www.highgo.ca
Re: Add minimal C example and SQL registration example for custom table access methods.
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 8:29 PM Roberto Mello wrote: > > Suggestion: > > In the C example you added you mention in the comment: > > + /* Methods from TableAmRoutine omitted from example, but all > + non-optional ones must be provided here. */ > > Perhaps you could provide a "see " to point the reader finding your example where he could find these non-optional methods he must provide? > > Nitpicking a little: your patch appears to change more lines than it does, because it added line breaks earlier in the lines. I would generally avoid that unless there's good reason to do so. Hey folks, There is a previous patch [1] around the same topic. What about joining efforts on pointing these documentation changes to the proposed test module? [1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/46/4588/ -- Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Re: Add minimal C example and SQL registration example for custom table access methods.
Suggestion: In the C example you added you mention in the comment: + /* Methods from TableAmRoutine omitted from example, but all + non-optional ones must be provided here. */ Perhaps you could provide a "see " to point the reader finding your example where he could find these non-optional methods he must provide? Nitpicking a little: your patch appears to change more lines than it does, because it added line breaks earlier in the lines. I would generally avoid that unless there's good reason to do so.
Re: Add minimal C example and SQL registration example for custom table access methods.
Thanks Robert for mentioning this! I indeed did not notice the switch. > Nitpicking a little: your patch appears to change more lines than it does, > because it added line breaks earlier in the lines. I would generally avoid > that unless there's good reason to do so. Thanks! I'm not sure why that happened since I normally run fill-region in emacs and when I re-ran it now, it looked as it used to. I've fixed it up in this patch. > Perhaps you could provide a "see " to point the reader finding your > example where he could find these non-optional methods he must provide? Since the responses were positive, I've taken the liberty to extend the sample code by simply including all the stub methods and the full struct. Marking which methods are optional and not. If that looks like too much, I can revert back. Perhaps only mentioning the struct like we do for the index AM here: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/index-api.html. However, as a reader, I feel like the full stubs are a bit more useful. Happy for feedback. Updated patch is attached. Cheers, Phil On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 1:40 PM Robert Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 3:03 PM Fabrízio de Royes Mello > wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 8:29 PM Roberto Mello > > wrote: > > > Suggestion: > > > > > > In the C example you added you mention in the comment: > > > > > > + /* Methods from TableAmRoutine omitted from example, but all > > > + non-optional ones must be provided here. */ > > > > > > Perhaps you could provide a "see " to point the reader finding your > > > example where he could find these non-optional methods he must provide? > > > > > > Nitpicking a little: your patch appears to change more lines than it > > > does, because it added line breaks earlier in the lines. I would > > > generally avoid that unless there's good reason to do so. > > > > Hey folks, > > > > There is a previous patch [1] around the same topic. What about joining > > efforts on pointing these documentation changes to the proposed test module? > > > > [1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/46/4588/ > > Looking over this thread, I see that it was moved from pgsql-docs to > pgsql-hackers while at the same time dropping the original poster from > the Cc list. That seems rather unfortunate. I suspect there's a pretty > good chance that Phil Eaton hasn't seen any of the replies other than > the first one from Paul Jungwirth, which is also the only one that > didn't ask for anything to be changed. > > Re-adding Phil. Phil, you should have a look over > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAByiw%2Br%2BCS-ojBDP7Dm%3D9YeOLkZTXVnBmOe_ajK%3Den8C_zB3_g%40mail.gmail.com > and respond to the various emails and probably update the patch > somehow. Note that feature freeze is in 2 weeks, so if we can't reach > agreement on what is to be done here soon, this will have to wait for > the next cycle, or later. > > -- > Robert Haas > EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com v2-0001-Add-boilerplate-C-code-and-SQL-registration-examp.patch Description: Binary data
Re: Add minimal C example and SQL registration example for custom table access methods.
On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 1:35 PM Phil Eaton wrote: > Happy for feedback. Updated patch is attached. I took a look at this patch and I don't think this is a very good idea, for two reasons: 1. We change the table access method interface definitions not all that infrequently, so I think this will become out of date, and fail to get updated. 2. Writing a table access method is really hard, and if you need this in order to be able to attempt it, you're probably shouldn't be attmempting it. I wouldn't mind patching the documentation to add the SQL part of this; that seems short enough, non-obvious enough, and sufficiently unlikely to change that I can believe it would be a worthwhile addition. But there have been 21 commits to tableam.h in the last 6 months and most of those would have needed to update this example, and I think it's very likely that some of them would have forgotten it. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Re: Add minimal C example and SQL registration example for custom table access methods.
> I took a look at this patch and I don't think this is a very good > idea, No problem! I've dropped the v2 code additions and stuck with the v1 attempt plus feedback. Thank you! Phil v3-0001-Add-minimal-C-example-and-SQL-registration-exampl.patch Description: Binary data
Re: Add minimal C example and SQL registration example for custom table access methods.
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 3:02 PM Phil Eaton wrote: > > I took a look at this patch and I don't think this is a very good > > idea, > > No problem! I've dropped the v2 code additions and stuck with the v1 > attempt plus feedback. That looks more reasonable. I'd like to quibble with this text: +. Here is an example of how to register an extension that provides a + table access method handler: I think this should say something more like "Here is how an extension SQL script might create a table access method handler". I'm not sure if we have a standard term in our documentation that should be used instead of "extension SQL script"; perhaps look for similar examples, or the documentation of extensions themselves, and copy the wording. Shouldn't "mem_tableam_handler" be "my_tableam_handler"? -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Re: Add minimal C example and SQL registration example for custom table access methods.
> I think this should say something more like "Here is how an extension > SQL script might create a table access method handler". Fair point. It is referred to elsewhere [0] in docs as a "script file", so I've done that. > Shouldn't "mem_tableam_handler" be "my_tableam_handler"? Sorry about that, fixed. [0] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/extend-extensions.html Phil v4-0001-Add-minimal-C-example-and-SQL-registration-exampl.patch Description: Binary data
Re: Add minimal C example and SQL registration example for custom table access methods.
On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 3:11 PM Phil Eaton wrote: > > I think this should say something more like "Here is how an extension > > SQL script might create a table access method handler". > > Fair point. It is referred to elsewhere [0] in docs as a "script > file", so I've done that. > > > Shouldn't "mem_tableam_handler" be "my_tableam_handler"? > > Sorry about that, fixed. > > [0] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/extend-extensions.html > > Phil > Nice... LGTM! -- Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Re: Add minimal C example and SQL registration example for custom table access methods.
I noticed that there were two CF entries pointing at this thread: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/48/4655/ https://commitfest.postgresql.org/48/4973/ That doesn't seem helpful, so I've marked the second one "Withdrawn". regards, tom lane
Re: Add minimal C example and SQL registration example for custom table access methods.
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 3:03 PM Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 8:29 PM Roberto Mello wrote: > > Suggestion: > > > > In the C example you added you mention in the comment: > > > > + /* Methods from TableAmRoutine omitted from example, but all > > + non-optional ones must be provided here. */ > > > > Perhaps you could provide a "see " to point the reader finding your > > example where he could find these non-optional methods he must provide? > > > > Nitpicking a little: your patch appears to change more lines than it does, > > because it added line breaks earlier in the lines. I would generally avoid > > that unless there's good reason to do so. > > Hey folks, > > There is a previous patch [1] around the same topic. What about joining > efforts on pointing these documentation changes to the proposed test module? > > [1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/46/4588/ Looking over this thread, I see that it was moved from pgsql-docs to pgsql-hackers while at the same time dropping the original poster from the Cc list. That seems rather unfortunate. I suspect there's a pretty good chance that Phil Eaton hasn't seen any of the replies other than the first one from Paul Jungwirth, which is also the only one that didn't ask for anything to be changed. Re-adding Phil. Phil, you should have a look over https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAByiw%2Br%2BCS-ojBDP7Dm%3D9YeOLkZTXVnBmOe_ajK%3Den8C_zB3_g%40mail.gmail.com and respond to the various emails and probably update the patch somehow. Note that feature freeze is in 2 weeks, so if we can't reach agreement on what is to be done here soon, this will have to wait for the next cycle, or later. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
