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: | 2017-10-12 21:23:34 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoar-0Syp51X3btTThWy_taSR4_vkayKTPGQQysKGwm0_Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Alexander Korotkov
<a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> It's probably that we imply different meaning to "MVCC implementation".
> While writing "MVCC implementation" I meant that, for instance, alternative
> storage
> may implement UNDO chains to store versions of same row. Correspondingly,
> it may not have any analogue of our HOT.
Yes, the zheap project on which EnterpriseDB is working has precisely
this characteristic.
> However I imply that alternative storage would share our "MVCC model". So,
> it
> should share our transactional model including transactions,
> subtransactions, snapshots etc.
> Therefore, if alternative storage is transactional, then in particular it
> should be able to fetch tuple with
> given TID according to given snapshot. However, how it's implemented
> internally is
> a black box for us. Thus, we don't insist that tuple should have different
> TID after update;
> we don't insist there is any analogue of HOT; we don't insist alternative
> storage needs vacuum
> (or if even it needs vacuum, it might be performed in completely different
> way) and so on.
Fully agreed.
> During conversations with you at PGCon and other conferences I had
> impression
> that you share this view on pluggable storages and MVCC. Probably, we just
> express
> this view in different words. Or alternatively I might understand you
> terribly wrong.
No, it sounds like we are on the same page. I'm only hoping that we
don't end with a bunch of storage engines that each use a different
XID space or something icky like that. I don't think the API should
try to cater to that sort of development.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-10-12 21:27:52 | Re: [POC] hash partitioning |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-10-12 21:18:25 | Re: UPDATE of partition key |