"Hsin Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We would like to get your feedback about this aproach - are we on the
> right track or is it a waste of time?
Impossible to tell, since you haven't said word one about what this
box is or what it can do. If it were plain storage hardware, why do
you need to muck with the innards of Postgres at all? Just use it
as disk. If it's not plain storage, you'll need to be a lot more
specific about what you expect the box to do. If there's lots of
processing power in the box, why don't you just run *all* of Postgres
inside the box? (Running any part of PG on Win2K is not my idea
of the correct solution in any case ;-).)
FWIW, I find it very hard to visualize a case where I'd think that
replacing heapam is the right approach. Replacing the storage
manager could be the right approach for certain situations, but
replacing heapam means replacing a lot of extremely critical
(read breakable) code for no obvious reason.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
