| From: | Konstantin Osipov <kostja(dot)osipov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Manish Rai Jain <manishrjain(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Exploring LSM Tree‑Based Storage Engine for PostgreSQL (Inspired by MyRocks) |
| Date: | 2025-10-04 04:33:55 |
| Message-ID: | aOCjs-HhyaAkAoAL@ark |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Manish Rai Jain <manishrjain(at)gmail(dot)com> [25/05/11 22:06]:
> Hi hackers,
> 1. Does this direction make sense for experimentation within the Postgres
> ecosystem?
> 2. Are there known architectural blockers or prior discussions/attempts in
> this space worth revisiting?
> 3. Would such a project be best developed entirely as a fork, or is there
> openness to evolving TAM to better support pluggable storage with LSM‑like
> semantics?
I think it would be difficult to fully integrate rocksdb since it
has its own transaction control and recovery, as well as uses
multi-threading rather than multi-processing.
PostgreSQL TAM expects that PostgreSQL WAL is used for replication
and most of transaction control functions (e.g. locking) is
outside the TAM domain.
--
Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2025-10-04 07:05:45 | Re: Buffer locking is special (hints, checksums, AIO writes) |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2025-10-04 03:55:56 | Re: Teaching planner to short-circuit empty UNION/EXCEPT/INTERSECT inputs |