| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe(at)qwest(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Gaetano Mendola" <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com>, "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: storage engine , mysql syntax CREATE TABLE t (i INT) |
| Date: | 2004-07-26 14:42:40 |
| Message-ID: | 27337.1090852960@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe(at)qwest(dot)net> writes:
> On Sun, 2004-07-25 at 22:23, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't think
>> it's either practical or interesting to try to introduce an equivalent
>> layering into Postgres.
> I can possibly see a use for a row locking storage system, i.e. non MVCC
> for some applications. But I can't see it being worth the amount of
> work it would require.
I can't either. The implications of such a thing really are so
far-reaching that it could not be isolated in a nice little layered API.
To take one example, we'd have to reexamine the locking and crash-safety
behavior for every single command that updates the system catalogs.
For better or for worse, I think we're married to MVCC.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-07-26 14:46:56 | Re: Weird...but correct? |
| Previous Message | Patrick Welche | 2004-07-26 14:38:56 | Re: Improvements to PostgreSQL |