From: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Vlad Arkhipov <arhipov(at)dc(dot)baikal(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: temporal support patch |
Date: | 2012-08-28 21:02:38 |
Message-ID: | 503D31EE.2000308@nasby.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8/27/12 12:40 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 1:30 PM, David Johnston<polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>> >My internals knowledge is basically zero but it would seem that If you
>> >simply wanted the end-of-transaction result you could just record nothing
>> >during the transaction and then copy whatever values are present at commit
>> >to whatever logging mechanism you need.
> "Whatever values are present and commit" could be a terabyte of data.
> Or it could be a kilobyte of changed data within a terabyte database.
> You'd need some way to identify which data actually needs to be
> copied, since you surely don't want to copy the whole database. And
> even if you can identify it, going back and visiting all those blocks
> a second time will be expensive.
This makes me think about the original time travel, which was to not automatically remove old tuple versions.
I think it would be interesting to look at allowing old tuples to be visible as well as doing something different when vacuum comes around.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-08-28 21:04:09 | Re: Incorrect behaviour when using a GiST index on points |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-08-28 20:54:10 | Re: splitting htup.h |