Re: Avoid MVCC using exclusive lock possible?

From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Avoid MVCC using exclusive lock possible?
Date: 2004-03-01 13:54:10
Message-ID: 20040301135410.GA8345@phlogiston.dyndns.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 10:43:34AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> general I think our VACUUM-based approach is superior to the
> Oracle-style UNDO approach, because it pushes the maintenance overhead
> out of foreground transaction processing and into a schedulable
> background process. Certainly any Oracle DBA will tell you that huge

I completely agree with this. If the recent work on lowering the
overall cost ov VACUUM on loaded systems pays off, then I think there
can be no argument that the work-now, vacuum-later strategy is the
best approach, simply because it deals with the outlying and
unexpected cases better than the alternatives. I know too many
people who have been burned by running out of rollback segments when
some use pattern emerged that they hadn't planned for.

A
--
Andrew Sullivan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message ivan 2004-03-01 14:11:30 lib for clients
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2004-03-01 10:19:21 Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal -- Summary to date