| From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Hannu Krosing'" <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
| Cc: | "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "'hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: Status of new relation file naming |
| Date: | 2000-09-13 17:36:31 |
| Message-ID: | 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A23018CBE@SECTORBASE1 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Will this new storage manager replace the current one or will one be
> able to choose which storage manager to use (at compile time, at
> startup, for each table)?
This would be possible, but no way if new smgr will be overwriting one
(smgr nature affects access methods).
> PostgreSQL started as an extensible ORDBMS, but IIRC at some stage
> all other SMs were thrown out.
There was just one additional smgr for stable memory. If someone has
this feature in comp then he could try to resurrect it.
> I don't think it would be a good idea to completely abandon the
> notion of storage manager as a replacable component.
Smgr wrapper is still in place.
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2000-09-13 17:48:13 | RE: Status of new relation file naming |
| Previous Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2000-09-13 17:29:37 | RE: Status of new relation file naming |