* Andrew Dunstan (and...@dunslane.net) wrote: > I agree, and indeed that was something like my first reaction to > hearing about this development - FDW seems like a very odd way to > handle this. But the notion of builtin columnar storage suggests to > me that we really need first to tackle how various storage engines > might be incorporated into Postgres. I know this has been a bugbear > for many years, but maybe now with serious proposals for alternative > storage engines on the horizon we can no longer afford to put off > the evil day when we grapple with it.
Agreed, and it goes beyond just columnar stores- I could see IOTs being implemented using this notion of a different 'storage engine', but calling it a 'storage engine' makes it sound like we want to change how we access files and I don't think we really want to change that but rather come up with a way to have an alternative heap.. Columnar or IOTs would still be page-based and go through shared buffers, etc, I'd think.. Thanks, Stephen
Description: Digital signature