| From: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Pluggable storage |
| Date: | 2017-10-13 18:54:04 |
| Message-ID: | CAPpHfdsX8DC1E_O+ca4BDr57PJpFE30Zu51G0Y4b5Uu8xxdHsw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 9:37 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:25 AM, Kuntal Ghosh
> <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-10-13 19:09:30 | Re: Parallel Bitmap Heap Scans segfaults due to (tbm->dsa==NULL) on PostgreSQL 10 |
| Previous Message | legrand legrand | 2017-10-13 18:47:51 | Re: Continuous integration on Windows? |