(2012/07/29 12:14), Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan writes:
>> On 28 July 2012 17:15, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> IMV smgr is pretty vestigial. I wouldn't recommend loading more
>>> functionality onto that layer, because it's as likely as not that
>>> we'll just get rid of it someday.
>
>> Agreed. I
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> On 28 July 2012 17:15, Tom Lane wrote:
>> IMV smgr is pretty vestigial. I wouldn't recommend loading more
>> functionality onto that layer, because it's as likely as not that
>> we'll just get rid of it someday.
> Agreed. I recently found myself reading a paper written
On 28 July 2012 17:15, Tom Lane wrote:
> IMV smgr is pretty vestigial. I wouldn't recommend loading more
> functionality onto that layer, because it's as likely as not that
> we'll just get rid of it someday.
Agreed. I recently found myself reading a paper written by Stonebraker
back in the Berk
Satoshi Nagayasu writes:
> Hi,
> I'm thinking of adding new probes to trace smgr activities.
> In this implementation, I just found that md.c has its own probes
> within it, but I'm wondering why we do not have those probes
> within the generic smgr routines itself.
IMV smgr is pretty vestigial.
