Re: [HACKERS] Pluggable storage

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Pluggable storage
Date: 2018-06-14 02:25:56
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 1:50 AM, Haribabu Kommi
<kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 4:44 PM Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> Not much changes are done in this apart moving the Vacuum visibility
> functions as part of the
> storage. But idea for the Vacuum was with each access method can define how
> it should perform.

We are planning to have a somewhat different mechanism for vacuum (for
non-delete marked indexes), so if you can provide some details or
discuss what you have in mind before implementation of same, that
would be great.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2018-06-14 02:37:40 Shared access methods?
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2018-06-14 02:22:48 Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS)