Pierre Emmanuel Gros wrote:
In mysql, we can wrote a create table like CREATE TABLE t (i INT) ENGINE
= INNODB||BDB|;
where the storage engine is the innodb one. This allow to have
differents kind of storage format, and allow to easly implements memory
table or remote table. I try to make the
Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 2004-07-25 at 22:23, Tom Lane wrote:
I don't think
it's either practical or interesting to try to introduce an equivalent
layering into Postgres.
I can possibly see a use for a row locking storage system, i.e. non MVCC
for some applications.
In mysql, we can wrote a create table like
CREATE TABLE t (i INT) ENGINE = INNODB||BDB|;
where the storage engine is the innodb one.
This allow to have differents kind of storage format, and allow to easly implements memory table or remote table.
I try to make the same thing for postgresql but
Pierre Emmanuel Gros wrote:
In mysql, we can wrote a create table like CREATE TABLE t (i INT) ENGINE
= INNODB||BDB|;
where the storage engine is the innodb one.
MySQL needs this because they have a weird understanding of RDBMS.
There's absolutely no sense in trying to transfer this stuff into
Pierre Emmanuel Gros wrote:
In mysql, we can wrote a create table like CREATE TABLE t (i
INT) ENGINE = INNODB||BDB|; where the storage engine is the
innodb one. This allow to have differents kind of storage
format, and allow to easly implements memory table or remote
table. I try to make
Andreas Pflug wrote:
Pierre Emmanuel Gros wrote:
In mysql, we can wrote a create table like CREATE TABLE t (i INT)
ENGINE = INNODB||BDB|;
where the storage engine is the innodb one.
MySQL needs this because they have a weird understanding of RDBMS.
This could be true, but the answer doesn't
Gaetano Mendola wrote:
We have only one engine: the full transactional one. If the OP need
to have for example the MEMORY one the he can easily create a RAM
disk and with the tablespaces support he can create tables or index
or whatever objects in memory.
Well, it certainly could make sense
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Postgres was, however, one of the systems that in fact pioneered
pluggable storage managers. So we could say we're already one
generation ahead of everyone else: we had switchable storage managers,
realized we didn't need them, and got rid of
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Postgres was, however, one of the systems that in fact pioneered
pluggable storage managers. So we could say we're already one
generation ahead of everyone else: we had switchable storage managers,
realized
On Sun, 2004-07-25 at 22:23, Tom Lane wrote:
I don't think
it's either practical or interesting to try to introduce an equivalent
layering into Postgres.
I can possibly see a use for a row locking storage system, i.e. non MVCC
for some applications. But I can't see it being worth the amount
10 matches
Mail list logo
