Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem

From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, "'Zeugswetter Andreas SB'" <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem
Date: 2001-05-23 23:15:06
Message-ID: 3B0C447A.E6EF4AF3@tpf.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> >> I guess that is the question. Are we heading for an overwriting storage
> >> manager?
>
> > I've never heard that it was given up. So there seems to be
> > at least a possibility to introduce it in the future.
>
> Unless we want to abandon MVCC (which I don't), I think an overwriting
> smgr is impractical.

Impractical ? Oracle does it.

> We need a more complex space-reuse scheme than
> that.
>

IMHO we have to decide which to go now.
As I already mentioned, changing current handling
of transactionId/CommandId to avoid UNDO is not
only useless but also harmful for an overwriting
smgr.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Don Baccus 2001-05-23 23:24:48 Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2001-05-23 22:57:52 Re: C++ Headers