Re: [HACKERS] Pluggable storage
| От | Alexander Korotkov |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Pluggable storage |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAPpHfdsX8DC1E_O+ca4BDr57PJpFE30Zu51G0Y4b5Uu8xxdHsw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Pluggable storage (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 9:37 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:25 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
<kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com> wrote:
> For some other
> storage engine, if we maintain the older version in different storage,
> undo for example, and don't require a new index entry, should we still
> call it HOT-chain?
I would say, emphatically, no. HOT is a creature of the existing
heap. If it's creeping into storage APIs they are not really
abstracted from what we have currently.
+1,
different storage may need to insert entries to only *some* of indexes.
Wherein these new index entries may have either same or new TIDs.
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: