| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Pluggable storage |
| Date: | 2017-10-13 18:37:10 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobWe0xTtbf7Qx9dgC3dqLKtbx9k-8PJ+AOHJrwHEooang@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:25 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
<kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> For some other
> storage engine, if we maintain the older version in different storage,
> undo for example, and don't require a new index entry, should we still
> call it HOT-chain?
I would say, emphatically, no. HOT is a creature of the existing
heap. If it's creeping into storage APIs they are not really
abstracted from what we have currently.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-10-13 18:41:14 | Re: Pluggable storage |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-10-13 18:27:45 | Re: Improve catcache/syscache performance. |