Re: [QUESTIONS] Does Storage Manager support >2GB tables?

The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> Redirected to 'the proper list' - pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
>
> On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Chris Albertson wrote:
>
> > Also, is anyone working on storage mangers? I was thinking that
> > a raw partition manager would be good to have. Could be faster
> > then one that uses the file system. Give it two partitions and
> > it could do stripping and gain some real speed.
>
> stripping can be done from the operating system level to give you
> that 'boost'...and Oracle, in fact, moved away from the raw partition
> level to just using the Unix file system...I believe it would
> overcomplicate the backend, and give a negligible boost in performance, if
> we had to build a 'low level drive interface'...

I know you must have looked at far more Postgresql code then I have but
I was browsing the storage manager. Apparently it is fairly easy to
assign a class to a manager as each class is tagged in the system catalog
with a storage method. What I really want is a >2GB table. I was trying
to see if this was supported by reading the source. Looks like it may be.
The note in the To Do list includes testing. I would test it but for
lack of disk space. (I'll have more in a while.)

I need the >2GB feature bad enough that I'd implement it myself. My thought
was that I may to easier to write a new manager then understand and fix
a broken one. A manager is just given a class name and block number and
told to either fetch or get it. (well not quite so simple but close).

I don't think it needs to look inside the 8K (adjustable now) blocks.
Anyway, if I wrote such a beast my real motivation would be to have big
tables. Faster big tables would be just a plus. What I really hope for is
that somebody else fixes the existing code :-)
--
--Chris Albertson

chris(at)topdog(dot)logicon(dot)com Voice: 626-351-0089 X127
Logicon RDA, Pasadena California Fax: 626-351-0699