Gaetano Mendola wrote: > We have only one engine: the full transactional one. If the OP need > to have for example the MEMORY one the he can easily create a RAM > disk and with the tablespaces support he can create tables or index > or whatever objects in memory.
Well, it certainly could make sense to have different storage engines for different access patterns. (Not for different degrees of implementation correctness, mind you.) So let's just say we don't have them. Postgres was, however, one of the systems that in fact pioneered pluggable storage managers. So we could say we're already one generation ahead of everyone else: we had switchable storage managers, realized we didn't need them, and got rid of them. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
