RE: WAL versus Postgres (or: what goes around, comes ar ound)

> > I've read this paper ~2 years ago. My plans so far were:
> >
> > 1. WAL in 7.1
> > 2. New (overwriting) storage manager in 7.2
> >
> > Comments?
>
> Vadim,
>
> Perhaps best solution will be to keep both (or three) storage
> managers - and specify which one to use at database creation time.
>
> After reading the Stonebraker's paper, I could think there
> are situations that we want the no-overwrite storage manager and
> other where overwrite storage manager may offer better performance.
> Wasn't Postgres originally designed to allow different storage
> managers?

Overwriting and non-overwriting smgr-s have quite different nature.
Access methods would take care about what type of smgr is used for
specific table/index...

Vadim