On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Alexander Korotkov > <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 4:01 AM, Michael Paquier < > michael.paqu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> Putting that in a couple of words. > >> 1. Table AM with a 6-byte TID. > >> 2. Table AM with a custom locator format, which could be TID-like. > >> 3. Table AM with no locators. > >> > >> Getting into having #1 first to work out would already be really > >> useful for users. > > > > What exactly would be useful for *users*? Any kind of API itself is > > completely useless for users, because they are users, not developers. > > Storage API could be useful for developers to implement storage AMs > whose in > > turn could be useful for users. > > What's your point? I assume that is what Michael meant. > TBH, I don't understand what particular enchantments do we expect from having #1. This is why it's hard for me to say if #1 is good idea. It's also hard for me to say if patch upthread is right way of implementing #1. But, I have gut feeling that if even #1 is good idea itself, it's definitely not what users expect from "pluggable storages". >From user side, it would be normal to expect that "pluggable storage" could be index-organized table where index could be say LSM... ------ Alexander Korotkov Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
