Message-ID: <a4958c8fedd6905d4e323bc50b0b64509263d752.camel@j-davis.com>
Subject: Re: Extensible Rmgr for Table AMs
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Amit
	Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Simon Riggs
	 <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 15:38:32 -0800
In-Reply-To: <20220201124550.gnhpw7iytc4da5tq@jrouhaud>
References: <ed1fb2e22d15d3563ae0eb610f7b61bb15999c0a.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <8a1b1ab033342433b1f827fee04ee562231fdb80.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <20220118095332.6xtlcjoyxobv6cbk@jrouhaud>
	 <721eeefbd24c55015739ea75c0a233345e13e0b5.camel@j-davis.com>
	 <20220201043938.r5s35loehsi27saj@jrouhaud>
	 <20220201124550.gnhpw7iytc4da5tq@jrouhaud>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/a4958c8fedd6905d4e323bc50b0b64509263d752.camel%40j-davis.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2022-02-01 at 20:45 +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 12:39:38PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > 
> > Other than that the patch looks good to me, as you said we just
> > need a decision
> > on whether custom rmgrs are wanted or not.
> 
> One last thing, did you do some benchmark with a couple custom rmgr
> to see how
> much the O(n) access is showing up in profiles?

What kind of a test case would be reasonable there? You mean having a
lot of custom rmgrs?

I was expecting that few people would have more than one custom rmgr
loaded anyway, so a sparse array or hashtable seemed wasteful. If
custom rmgrs become popular we probably need to have a larger ID space
anyway, but it seems like overengineering to do so now.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis