Message-ID: <f781f8f198567cee9e3776487bab3e41a7b91b82.camel@j-davis.com>
Subject: Re: Comments on Custom RMGRs
From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers
	 <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 09:39:48 -0700
In-Reply-To: 
 <CANbhV-E4pTWeF-DsdaGsOrjJNFWPaR+Dstjrnkqvf9JFFgOKKQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
	<CANbhV-E4pTWeF-DsdaGsOrjJNFWPaR+Dstjrnkqvf9JFFgOKKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/f781f8f198567cee9e3776487bab3e41a7b91b82.camel%40j-davis.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2022-05-11 at 15:24 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> [PATCH: rmgr_001.v1.patch]
> 
> [PATCH: rmgr_002.v1.patch]

Thank you. Both of these look like good ideas, and I will commit them
in a few days assuming that nobody else sees a problem.

> It occurs to me that any use of WAL presumes that Checkpoints exist
> and do something useful. However, the custom rmgr interface doesn't
> allow you to specify any actions on checkpoint, so ends up being
> limited in scope. So I think we also need an rm_checkpoint() call -
> which would be a no-op for existing rmgrs.
> [PATCH: rmgr_003.v1.patch]

I also like this idea, but can you describe the intended use case? I
looked through CheckPointGuts() and I'm not sure what else a custom AM
might want to do. Maybe sync special files in a way that's not handled
with RegisterSyncRequest()?

Regards,
	Jeff Davis