| From: | "Vadim Mikheev" <vmikheev(at)sectorbase(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |
| Date: | 2001-05-20 21:13:37 |
| Message-ID: | 003f01c0e171$bd1e2f80$4979583f@sectorbase.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Were you going to use WAL to get free space from old copies too?
Considerable approach.
> Vadim, I think I am missing something. You mentioned UNDO would be used
> for these cases and I don't understand the purpose of adding what would
> seem to be a pretty complex capability:
Yeh, we already won title of most advanced among simple databases, -:)
Yes, looking in list of IDs assigned to single transaction in tqual.c is much
easy to do than UNDO. As well as couple of fsyncs is easy than WAL.
> > 1. Reclaim space allocated by aborted transactions.
>
> Is there really a lot to be saved here vs. old tuples of committed
> transactions?
Are you able to protect COPY FROM from abort/crash?
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | mlw | 2001-05-20 21:18:16 | Re: External search engine, advice |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-05-20 21:03:40 | More pgindent follies |