| From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "'Michael A(dot) Olson'" <mao(at)sleepycat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | RE: Berkeley DB license |
| Date: | 2000-05-16 18:13:24 |
| Message-ID: | 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A23018BE3@SECTORBASE1 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Well, so, before replacing anything we would have to add
> > MVCC to BDB. I still didn't look at your sources, 'll do
> > in a few days...
>
> Vadim, I thought you said you were going to be doing a new storage
> manager for 7.2, including an over-write storage manager that
> keeps MVCC tuples in a separate location. Could SDB work in that
> environment easier, without having MVCC integrated into SDB?
How can we integrate SDB code into PostgreSQL without MVCC support
in SDB if we still want to have MVCC?! I missed something?
Or you ask is replacement+changes_in_SDB_for_MVCC easier than
WAL+new_our_smgr? I don't know.
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-05-16 18:28:50 | Re: Berkeley DB license |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-05-16 17:54:21 | Re: Berkeley DB license |