Hello. (in the next branch:) At Tue, 27 Nov 2018 14:58:35 +0900, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote in <080ce65e-7b96-adbf-1c8c-7c88d87ea...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > Thank you for working on this. Really looking forward to how this shapes > up. :)
+1. I looked through the documentation part, as where I can do something. am.html: > 61.1. Overview of Index access methods > 61.1.1. Basic API Structure for Indexes > 61.1.2. Index Access Method Functions > 61.1.3. Index Scanning > 61.2. Overview of Table access methods > 61.2.1. Table access method API > 61.2.2. Table Access Method Functions > 61.2.3. Table scanning Aren't 61.1 and 61.2 better in the reverse order? Is there a reason for the difference of the titles between 61.1.1 and 61.2.1? The contents are quite similar. + <sect2 id="table-api"> + <title>Table access method API</title> The member names of index AM struct begins with "am" but they don't have an unified prefix in table AM. It seems a bit incosistent. Perhaps we might should rename some long and internal names.. + <sect2 id="table-functions"> + <title>Table Access Method Functions</title> Table AM functions are far finer-grained than index AM. I think that AM developers needs the more concrete description on what every API function does and explanation on various previously-internal structs. I suppose that how the functions are used in core code paths will be written in the following sections. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
