On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 5:37 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 7:08 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> I agree that smgrtype as it stands is pretty pointless, but what > >> will we be using instead to get to those other implementations? > > > Our current thinking is that smgropen() should know how to map a small > > number of special database OIDs to different smgr implementations > > Hmm. Maybe mapping based on tablespaces would be a better idea? >
Thanks to bringing up this idea of mutliple smgr implementations. I also thought of implementing our own smgr implementation to support transparent data encryption on the disk based on tablespace mapping. Regards, Haribabu Kommi Fujitsu Australia
