Re: Drop type "smgr"?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Drop type "smgr"?
Date: 2019-02-28 14:15:34
Message-ID: CA+Tgmob1TaPVYM7GAWj0Hxy1bhz=TKkApq6CsWD9V2fpxpdsUg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 1:03 AM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> The type smgr has only one value 'magnetic disk'. ~15 years ago it
> also had a value 'main memory', and in Berkeley POSTGRES 4.2 there was
> a third value 'sony jukebox'. Back then, all tables had an associated
> block storage manager, and it was recorded as an attribute relsmgr of
> pg_class (or pg_relation as it was known further back). This was the
> type of that attribute, removed by Bruce in 3fa2bb31 (1997).
>
> Nothing seems to break if you remove it (except for some tests using
> it in an incidental way). See attached.

FWIW, +1 from me. I thought about arguing to remove this a number of
years ago when I was poking around in this area for some reason, but
it didn't seem important enough to be worth arguing about then. Now,
because we're actually going to maybe-hopefully get some more smgrs
that do interesting things, it seems worth the arguing...

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Kuzmenkov 2019-02-28 14:27:51 Re: Optimze usage of immutable functions as relation
Previous Message Robert Haas 2019-02-28 14:12:25 Re: Row Level Security − leakproof-ness and performance implications