From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
---|---|
To: | "'Chris Bitmead'" <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org |
Subject: | RE: Storage Manager (was postgres 7.2 features.) |
Date: | 2000-07-11 18:49:06 |
Message-ID: | 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A23018C52@SECTORBASE1 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> According to the postgres research papers, the no-overwrite storage
> manager has the following attributes...
But don't forget about conclusion they made...
> * It's always faster than WAL in the presence of stable main memory.
> (Whether the stable caches in modern disk drives is an approximation I
> don't know).
And much slower in the absence...
> * It's more scalable and has less logging contention. This allows
> greater scalablility in the presence of multiple processors.
We can implement multiple log files (on different disks) someday.
The only contention will be for reading/changing some number
(required for recoverer to read logs in right order)...
> * Instantaneous crash recovery.
And slow vacuum...
> * Time travel is available at no cost.
We told about that already.
> * Easier to code and prove correctness. (I used to work for a database
> company that implemented WAL, and it took them a large number of years
> before they supposedly corrected every bug and crash condition on
> recovery).
The only plus for me -:)
Vadim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2000-07-11 18:53:09 | RE: Storage Manager (was postgres 7.2 features.) |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2000-07-11 18:47:52 | Re: [HACKERS] Foreign key bugs (Re: "New" bug?? Serious - crashes backend.) |