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 <aekorotkov@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