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.
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert
Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
