Move syncscan.c?
Hi,
It's a bit odd that syncscan.c is used by both heapam.c and tableam.c,
and provides a generic block-synchronization mechanism that other
table AMs might want to use too, but it lives under
src/backend/access/heap. It doesn't actually do anything heap
specific (beyond being block-oriented), and it's weird that tableam.c
has to include heapam.h.
Perhaps we should move the .c file under src/backend/access/table, as attached.
I suppose it's remotely possible that someone might invent
physical-order index scans, and once you have those you might sync
scans of those too, and then even table would be too specific, but
that may be a bit far fetched.
Attachments:
0001-Move-syncscan.c-to-src-backend-access-table.patchtext/x-patch; charset=US-ASCII; name=0001-Move-syncscan.c-to-src-backend-access-table.patchDownload+33-12
Hi,
On 2020-06-23 13:30:39 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
It's a bit odd that syncscan.c is used by both heapam.c and tableam.c,
and provides a generic block-synchronization mechanism that other
table AMs might want to use too, but it lives under
src/backend/access/heap. It doesn't actually do anything heap
specific (beyond being block-oriented), and it's weird that tableam.c
has to include heapam.h.Perhaps we should move the .c file under src/backend/access/table, as attached.
Sounds reasonable. I suspect there's a few more files (and definitely
functions) that could be de-heapified.
I suppose it's remotely possible that someone might invent
physical-order index scans, and once you have those you might sync
scans of those too, and then even table would be too specific, but
that may be a bit far fetched.
Hm. That'd be an argument for moving it to access/common. I don't really
see a reason not to go for that?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 6:28 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
On 2020-06-23 13:30:39 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
I suppose it's remotely possible that someone might invent
physical-order index scans, and once you have those you might sync
scans of those too, and then even table would be too specific, but
that may be a bit far fetched.Hm. That'd be an argument for moving it to access/common. I don't really
see a reason not to go for that?
Ok, done that way. Thanks.