Re: Big 7.1 open items

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>
Subject: Re: Big 7.1 open items
Date: 2000-06-19 00:54:00
Message-ID: 200006190054.UAA20804@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

> At 08:08 PM 6/18/00 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >> Does your proposal break the smgr abstraction, i.e. does it
> >> preclude later efforts to (say) implement an (optional)
> >> raw-device storage manager?
> >
> >Seeing very few want that done, I don't see it as an issue at this
> >point.
>
> Sorry, I disagree. There's excuse for breaking existing abstractions
> unless there's a compelling reason to do so.
>
> My question should make it clear I was using a raw-device storage
> manager as an example. There are other possbilities, like a
> many-tables-per-file storage manager.

I agree it is nice to keep things as abstract as possible. I just don't
know if the abstraction will cause added complexity.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2000-06-19 00:54:37 Re: int24_ops and int42_ops are bogus
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2000-06-19 00:51:11 Re: Re: Call for port testing on fmgr changes -- Results!

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2000-06-19 03:13:44 Re: Big 7.1 open items
Previous Message Ross J. Reedstrom 2000-06-19 00:47:04 Re: Big 7.1 open items