From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Arkhena(at)gmail(dot)com, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: What to name the current heap after pluggable storage / what to rename? |
Date: | 2018-12-19 19:08:03 |
Message-ID: | 20181219190803.GM416@fetter.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 08:32:28AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-Dec-19, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > Well, that depends on what "non-heap layouts" you're thinking of. I
> > think there'd be some further work needed to make efficient IOTs
> > possible, but the patchset gets us a long way to be able to do that in a
> > pluggable fashion. Biggest problem would probably be extending the
> > existing index AMs, for secondary indexes, to point to a key wider than
> > a tid, without loosing too much efficiency.
>
> I think the important question is will we eventually get the option to
> do "CREATE TABLE ... STORAGE indexorg" (or whatever name) rather than
> are we already getting that feature, and I think the answer is clearly
> yes, so we should keep using the word "heap" in the name as the primary
> feature of the historical implementation.
>
> The "zheap" name makes it clear that it is still a heap; the main
> difference (if I understand correctly) is how does tuple
> updating/deletion work.
>
> The current heap implementation is for "non-overwriting storage
> management", but that's a mouthful and acronyms based on
> "non-overwriting" don't seem great ("noheap" seems a bit silly. Maybe
> "nowheap" is better? How about "nosheap"?)
>
> Maybe we can take the easy way and use something like "stdheap".
>
> Or just "nheap".
oheap for "original?"
Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-12-19 19:13:26 | lock level for DETACH PARTITION looks sketchy |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2018-12-19 19:02:44 | Re: Remove Deprecated Exclusive Backup Mode |