2010/9/16 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Hitoshi Harada <umi.tanuki@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2010/9/16 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
>>>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>>>> Yet there are other cases that probably *could* work well based on a
>>>>> storage-level abstraction boundary; index-organized tables for instance.
>>>>> So I think we need to have some realistic idea of what we want to
>>>>> support and design an API accordingly, not hope that if we don't
>>>>> know what we want we will somehow manage to pick an API that makes
>>>>> all things possible.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. Random ideas: index-organized tables...
>>>
>>> I'd love to see a table that is based on one of the existing KVSs.
>>
>> I'm not familiar with the term KVS?
>
> Oh, key-value store, I bet. Yeah, that would be cool.
That's it. Like Redis, Tokyo Cabinet, or something.
--
Hitoshi Harada