On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 3:02 PM Phil Eaton <phil@eatonphil.com> 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