| 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>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Pluggable storage |
| Date: | 2018-02-22 23:20:29 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmobg1A57qkMqyycoRUN1QhvP8G+9Ms=+uB1Mvfjf08oXNA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 5:56 AM, Alexander Korotkov
<a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> BTW, EnterpriseDB announces zheap table access method (heap with undo log)
> [2]. I think this is great, and I'm looking forward for publishing zheap in
> mailing lists. But I'm concerning about its compatibility with pluggable
> table access methods API. Does zheap use table AM API from this thread? Or
> does it just override current heap and needs to be adopted to use table AM
> API? Or does it implements own API?
Right now it just hacks the code. The plan is to adapt it to whatever
API we settle on in this thread.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-02-22 23:32:15 | Re: Translations contributions urgently needed |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-02-22 23:17:09 | Re: Typo in predicate.c comment |