Re: Extensible Rmgr for Table AMs

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