Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Vadim Mikheev <vmikheev(at)reveredata(dot)com>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff
Date: 2003-03-21 15:41:54
Message-ID: 13049.1048261314@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Do we want UNDO just for subtransactions?
> That was pretty easily defeated, though I made an argument that you
> could do UNDO pretty cheaply when you have WAL ensuring crash recovery.

That argument was what got us into the early-7.1 WAL bloat problems.
I don't think it's "pretty cheap" to have to hold the entire WAL for the
length of your longest-running transactions.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-03-21 15:42:55 Re: ALTER TABLE / CLUSTER ON
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2003-03-21 15:40:59 Re: ALTER TABLE / CLUSTER ON