> > Perhaps what you are talking about is at so low a level that it
> > has no influence on these features...but if not then it might be
> > that the writer of a WAL will want to write an implementation of
> > the storage manager that is well integrated with the WAL.
> Yes, I would like to do this, if everyone agreed to wait for
> 7.2. Actually, I'm not sure if we're able to make both smgr
> and WAL in 7.1
istm that future work on distributed databases would require some
generic API layer, perhaps identical to the current smgr layer or
perhaps something higher up. Maybe an alternate local storage scheme
could plug into that same interface, much as storage managers used to
do.
If this is accurate, then someone could demonstrate the sleepycat code
without having to impact other parts of the code?
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California