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

Re: 7.3.4 on Linux: UPDATE .. foo=foo+1 degrades massivly

From: Philipp Buehler <pb(at)de(dot)buehler(dot)net>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 7.3.4 on Linux: UPDATE .. foo=foo+1 degrades massivly
Date: 2004-04-23 05:35:36
Message-ID: 20040423053536.GA21879@srv9.de.buehler.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
On 22/04/2004, Guy Fraser <guy(at)incentre(dot)net> wrote To pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org:
> >Shouldn't the Database server be the entity that decides when vacuum is
> >needed?
> 
> How is the database supposed to know when you want to purge records?
> Once a vacuum has been run, the table can not be rolled back or time
> traveled.

Hmm, if the UPDATE is in a transaction block. After this block is 
committed, the deleted tuple could be purged if there is a flag. Like, 
either in the schema 'purge-on-commit', or as an option like 'UPDATE PURGE'?

Just an idea.. (Brainfart?) :)

ciao
-- 
Philipp Buehler, aka fips | <double-p>

cvs -d /dev/myself commit -m "it's my life" dont/you/forget

In response to

Responses

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: John Sidney-WoollettDate: 2004-04-23 06:32:56
Subject: Re: Unicode + LC_COLLATE
Previous:From: Greg StarkDate: 2004-04-23 04:37:59
Subject: Re: staggered query?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group