On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 05:12:22PM -0700, Don Baccus wrote:
> At 08:08 PM 6/18/00 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >> Does your proposal break the smgr abstraction, i.e. does it
> >> preclude later efforts to (say) implement an (optional)
> >> raw-device storage manager?
> >
> >Seeing very few want that done, I don't see it as an issue at this
> >point.
>
> Sorry, I disagree. There's excuse for breaking existing abstractions
> unless there's a compelling reason to do so.
>
> My question should make it clear I was using a raw-device storage
> manager as an example. There are other possbilities, like a
> many-tables-per-file storage manager.
>
Don, I see Bruce's proposal as implementation details within the sotrage
manager. In fact, we should probably implement the tablespace commands
with an extention of the smgr api. One different smgr I've been thinking
a little about is the persistent RAM smgr: I've heard there's some
new technologies coming up that may make large amounts cheaper, soon.
And there's always PostgreSQL for PalmOS, right? (Hey, IBM's got a Pocket
DB2, why shouldn't we?)
Ross
--
Ross J. Reedstrom, Ph.D., <reedstrm@rice.edu>
NSBRI Research Scientist/Programmer
Computer and Information Technology Institute
Rice University, 6100 S. Main St., Houston, TX 77005