RE: WAL versus Postgres (or: what goes around, comes ar ound)

>  > I've read this paper ~2 years ago. My plans so far were:
>  > 
>  > 1. WAL in 7.1
>  > 2. New (overwriting) storage manager in 7.2
>  > 
>  > Comments?
> 
> Vadim,
> 
> Perhaps best solution will be to keep both (or three) storage 
> managers - and specify which one to use at database creation time.
> 
> After reading the Stonebraker's paper, I could think there 
> are situations that we want the no-overwrite storage manager and
> other where overwrite storage manager may offer better performance.
> Wasn't Postgres originally designed to allow different storage
> managers?

Overwriting and non-overwriting smgr-s have quite different nature.
Access methods would take care about what type of smgr is used for
specific table/index...

Vadim