| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pi(dot)songs(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Hadoop backend? |
| Date: | 2009-02-24 00:24:43 |
| Message-ID: | 28913.1235435083@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Jonah H. Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I believe there is more than that which would need to be done nowadays. I
> seem to recall that the storage manager abstraction has slowly been
> dedicated/optimized for md over the past 6 years or so.
As far as I can tell, the PG storage manager API is at the wrong level
of abstraction for pretty much everything. These days, everything we do
is atop the Unix filesystem API, and anything that smgr might have been
able to do for us is getting handled in kernel filesystem code or device
drivers. (Back in the eighties, when it was more plausible for PG to do
direct device access, maybe smgr was good for something; but no more.)
It's interesting to speculate about where we could draw an abstraction
boundary that would be more useful. I don't think the MySQL guys got it
right either...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-02-24 01:43:02 | Re: Okay to change TypeCreate() signature in back branches? |
| Previous Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2009-02-23 23:03:17 | Re: Hadoop backend? |