On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 7:14 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 7:11 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > About (4), one option is that we directly call the correct handler
> > function for the built-in type directly from
> > toast_(de)compress(_slice) functions but in that case, we are
> > duplicating the code, another option is that we call the
> > GetCompressionRoutine() a common function and in that, for the
> > built-in type, we can directly call the corresponding handler function
> > and get the routine. The only thing is to avoid duplicating in
> > decompression routine we need to convert CompressionId to Oid before
> > calling GetCompressionRoutine(), but now we can avoid sys cache lookup
> > for the built-in type.
>
> Suppose that we have a variable lz4_methods (like heapam_methods) that
> is always defined, whether or not lz4 support is present. It's defined
> like this:
>
> const CompressionAmRoutine lz4_compress_methods = {
> .datum_compress = lz4_datum_compress,
> .datum_decompress = lz4_datum_decompress,
> .datum_decompress_slice = lz4_datum_decompress_slice
> };
Yeah, this makes sense.
>
> (It would be good, I think, to actually name things something like
> this - in particular why would we have TableAmRoutine and
> IndexAmRoutine but not include "Am" in the one for compression? In
> general I think tableam is a good pattern to adhere to and we should
> try to make this patch hew closely to it.)
For the compression routine name, I did not include "Am" because
currently, we are storing the compression method in the new catalog
"pg_compression" not in the pg_am. So are you suggesting that we
should store the compression methods also in the pg_am instead of
creating a new catalog? IMHO, storing the compression methods in a
new catalog is a better option instead of storing them in pg_am
because actually, the compression methods are not the same as heap or
index AMs, I mean they are actually not the access methods. Am I
missing something?
> Then those functions are contingent on #ifdef HAVE_LIBLZ4: they either
> do their thing, or complain that lz4 compression is not supported.
> Then in this function you can just say, well, if we have the 01 bit
> pattern, handler = &lz4_compress_methods and proceed from there.
Okay
> BTW, I think the "not supported" message should probably use the 'by
> this build' language we use in some places i.e.
>
Okay
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
