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>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Pluggable storage |
Date: | 2017-07-15 02:14:43 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa7jmfFOxr-L9=NpSm+3vpo6wypEYAGWrY3GvS6J-YBdw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Alexander Korotkov
<a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> If #1 is only about changing tuple and page formats, then could be much
> simpler than the patch upthread? We can implement "page format access
> methods" with routines for insertion, update, pruning and deletion of tuples
> *in particular page*. There is no need to redefine high-level logic for
> scanning heap, doing updates and so on...
That assumes that every tuple format does those things in the same
way, which I suspect is not likely to be the case. I think that
pruning and vacuum are artifacts of the current heap format, and they
may be nonexistent or take some altogether different form in some
other storage engine. InnoDB isn't much like the PostgreSQL heap, and
neither is SQL Server, IIUC. If we're creating a heap format that can
only be different in trivial ways from what we have now, and anything
that really changes the paradigm is off-limits, well, that's not
really interesting enough to justify the work of creating a heap
storage API.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-07-15 02:27:13 | Re: Pluggable storage |
Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2017-07-15 02:07:03 | segfault in HEAD when too many nested functions call |