> At 08:08 PM 6/18/00 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >> Does your proposal break the smgr abstraction, i.e. does it
> >> preclude later efforts to (say) implement an (optional)
> >> raw-device storage manager?
> >
> >Seeing very few want that done, I don't see it as an issue at this
> >point.
>
> Sorry, I disagree. There's excuse for breaking existing abstractions
> unless there's a compelling reason to do so.
>
> My question should make it clear I was using a raw-device storage
> manager as an example. There are other possbilities, like a
> many-tables-per-file storage manager.
I agree it is nice to keep things as abstract as possible. I just don't
know if the abstraction will cause added complexity.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
