| From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | vadim(at)krs(dot)ru (Vadim Mikheev) |
| Cc: | stanb(at)awod(dot)com, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] proposals for LLL, part 1 |
| Date: | 1998-07-17 05:15:37 |
| Message-ID: | 199807170515.BAA14911@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Yes, this is very important question...
>
> In original postgres there was dedicated vacuum process...
> Vacuuming without human administration is possible but
> in any case commit in non-overwriting system requires
> ~2 data block writes (first - to write changes, second - to
> write updated xmin/xmax statuses). In WAL systems only
> 1 data block write required...
>
> Ok, we have to decide two issues about what would we like
> to use in future:
>
> 1. type of storage manager/transaction system -
>
> WAL or non-overwriting.
Can you explain WAL. I understand locking vs. multi-version.
--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 1998-07-17 07:18:03 | Re: [INTERFACES] Re: [HACKERS] changes in 6.4 |
| Previous Message | Vadim Mikheev | 1998-07-17 05:00:10 | Re: [HACKERS] proposals for LLL, part 1 |