Re: [HACKERS] Pluggable storage

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Alexander Korotkov
<a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> For me, it's crucial point that pluggable storages should be able to have
> different MVCC implementation, and correspondingly have full control over
> its interactions with indexes.
> Thus, it would be good if we would get consensus on that point.  I'd like
> other discussion participants to comment whether they agree/disagree and
> why.
> Any comments?

I think it's good for new storage managers to have full control over
interactions with indexes.  I'm not sure about the MVCC part.  I think
it would be legitimate to want a storage manager to ignore MVCC
altogether - e.g. to build a non-transactional table.  I don't know
that it would be a very good idea to have two different full-fledged
MVCC implementations, though.  Like Tom says, that would be
replicating a lot of the awfulness of the MySQL model.

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


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers