| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2017-06-22 14:27:22 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoaja-kynqWWt9j3BhtRUhK3d_NmdhztAApAfG7Ox5UEYQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Alexander Korotkov
<a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 4:01 AM, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>> Putting that in a couple of words.
>> 1. Table AM with a 6-byte TID.
>> 2. Table AM with a custom locator format, which could be TID-like.
>> 3. Table AM with no locators.
>>
>> Getting into having #1 first to work out would already be really
>> useful for users.
>
> What exactly would be useful for *users*? Any kind of API itself is
> completely useless for users, because they are users, not developers.
> Storage API could be useful for developers to implement storage AMs whose in
> turn could be useful for users.
What's your point? I assume that is what Michael meant.
> Then while saying that #1 is useful for
> users, it would be nice to keep in mind particular storage AMs which can be
> implemented using #1.
I don't think anybody's arguing with that.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2017-06-22 14:30:14 | Re: Pluggable storage |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-06-22 14:24:16 | Re: intermittent failures in Cygwin from select_parallel tests |