RE: Proposal: replace no-overwrite with Berkeley DB

From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
To: "'Philip Warner'" <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, "Michael A(dot) Olson" <mao(at)sleepycat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: ned(at)greatbridge(dot)com
Subject: RE: Proposal: replace no-overwrite with Berkeley DB
Date: 2000-05-15 20:27:07
Message-ID: 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A23018BDC@SECTORBASE1
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Perhaps what you are talking about is at so low a level that it
> has no influence on these features...but if not then it might be
> that the writer of a WAL will want to write an implementation of
> the storage manager that is well integrated with the WAL.

Yes, I would like to do this, if everyone agreed to wait for
7.2. Actually, I'm not sure if we're able to make both smgr
and WAL in 7.1

Vadim

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mikheev, Vadim 2000-05-15 20:36:57 RE: WAL versus Postgres (or: what goes around, comes ar ound)
Previous Message Mikheev, Vadim 2000-05-15 20:23:29 RE: WAL versus Postgres (or: what goes around, comes ar ound)