On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote: >> On 06/04/18 01:59, Claudio Freire wrote: >>> >>> The iteration interface, however, seems quite specific for the use >>> case of vacuumlazy, so it's not really a good abstraction. >> >> >> Can you elaborate? It does return the items one block at a time. Is that >> what you mean by being specific for vacuumlazy? I guess that's a bit >> special, but if you imagine some other users for this abstraction, it's >> probably not that unusual. For example, if we started using it in bitmap >> heap scans, a bitmap heap scan would also want to get the TIDs one block >> number at a time. > > But you're also tying the caller to the format of the buffer holding > those TIDs, for instance. Why would you, when you can have an > interface that just iterates TIDs and let the caller store them > if/however they want? > > I do believe a pure iterator interface is a better interface.
Between the b-tree or not discussion and the refactoring to separate the code, I don't think we'll get this in the next 24hs. So I guess we'll have ample time to poner on both issues during the next commit fest.
