On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:22 AM, A. Kretschmer <andreas.kretschmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In response to Dave Page : >> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Thom Brown <thombrown@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > Didn't PostgreSQL used to have more than 1 storage engine in the past? >> > I thought I read somewhere it did, but it was decided it was a >> > compromise on stability and/or quality, so ended up using a single >> > kick-ass engine? >> >> Yes, many, many moons ago. > > Really? Do you have a link? Hmm, I think I misread Thom's question. The smgr API used to be far more rigidly designed as I understand it, to allow the possibility of having different storage engines (for example, maybe one that used raw devices). I don't know that any other storage engines were ever actually written though. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
