| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Pluggable storage |
| Date: | 2017-10-11 20:08:23 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZxFbABxBZwiJH3C+jy8JV2LKEWPKVj_ro8+AZskZLH7w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Alexander Korotkov
<a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> For me, it's crucial point that pluggable storages should be able to have
> different MVCC implementation, and correspondingly have full control over
> its interactions with indexes.
> Thus, it would be good if we would get consensus on that point. I'd like
> other discussion participants to comment whether they agree/disagree and
> why.
> Any comments?
I think it's good for new storage managers to have full control over
interactions with indexes. I'm not sure about the MVCC part. I think
it would be legitimate to want a storage manager to ignore MVCC
altogether - e.g. to build a non-transactional table. I don't know
that it would be a very good idea to have two different full-fledged
MVCC implementations, though. Like Tom says, that would be
replicating a lot of the awfulness of the MySQL model.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeremy Schneider | 2017-10-11 20:28:26 | Re: show precise repos version for dev builds? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-10-11 20:02:03 | Re: Fix a typo in execReplication.c |