* Andrew Dunstan (andrew@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
