Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 7:08 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I agree that smgrtype as it stands is pretty pointless, but what >> will we be using instead to get to those other implementations?
> Our current thinking is that smgropen() should know how to map a small > number of special database OIDs to different smgr implementations
Hmm. Maybe mapping based on tablespaces would be a better idea?
Thanks to bringing up this idea of mutliple smgr implementations. I also
thought of implementing our own smgr implementation to support transparent
data encryption on the disk based on tablespace mapping.