Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Vacuum Daemon

From: "J(dot) R(dot) Nield" <jrnield(at)usol(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>,PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vacuum Daemon
Date: 2002-06-30 01:09:51
Message-ID: 1025399396.2514.7.camel@localhost.localdomain (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sat, 2002-06-29 at 20:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> writes:

> > Second: There was some discussion 
> > ( about 
> > this not being neede once UNDO is on place, what is the current view on this?
> I do not think that is the case; and anyway we've pretty much rejected
> Vadim's notion of going to an Oracle-style UNDO buffer.  I don't foresee
> VACUUM going away anytime soon --- what we need is to make it less
> obtrusive.  7.2 made some progress in that direction, but we need more.

Could someone point me to this discussion, or summarize what the problem
was? Was his proposal to keep tuple versions in the UNDO AM, or only
pointers to them?

The referred-to message seems to be about something else.

J. R. Nield

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-06-30 01:55:00
Subject: Re: Vacuum Daemon
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-06-30 00:14:52
Subject: Re: Vacuum Daemon

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group