On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Alexander Korotkov <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > For me, it's crucial point that pluggable storages should be able to have > different MVCC implementation, and correspondingly have full control over > its interactions with indexes. > Thus, it would be good if we would get consensus on that point. I'd like > other discussion participants to comment whether they agree/disagree and > why. > Any comments?
I think it's good for new storage managers to have full control over interactions with indexes. I'm not sure about the MVCC part. I think it would be legitimate to want a storage manager to ignore MVCC altogether - e.g. to build a non-transactional table. I don't know that it would be a very good idea to have two different full-fledged MVCC implementations, though. Like Tom says, that would be replicating a lot of the awfulness of the MySQL model. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers