Re: Pluggable storage

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> 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.
>

TBH, I don't understand what particular enchantments do we expect from
having #1.
This is why it's hard for me to say if #1 is good idea. It's also hard for
me to say if patch upthread is right way of implementing #1.
But, I have gut feeling that if even #1 is good idea itself, it's
definitely not what users expect from "pluggable storages".
From user side, it would be normal to expect that "pluggable storage" could
be index-organized table where index could be say LSM...

------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company