| From: | "Vadim Mikheev" <vmikheev(at)reveredata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Manfred Koizar" <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff |
| Date: | 2003-03-20 05:06:17 |
| Message-ID: | 00bc01c2ee9e$70798210$15f5fea9@home |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> >> Given all the flak we got about WAL growth during the time we had that
> >> code enabled, I think there's no chance that UNDO will be the preferred
> >> path. It's not workable with big transactions.
>
> > Somehow it's working in other DB systems.
>
> Isn't limited UNDO segment size one of the most-hated management
> problems for Oracle databases? I don't see why we should want to
> duplicate one of their worst problems.
How is it different from disk-space appetite of our non-overwriting smgr?!
Before transaction commits you have to keep old data somewhere anyway.
Let's not limit size of UNDO segments and that's it.
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-03-20 05:07:42 | Re: A bad behavior under autocommit off mode |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-03-20 05:05:20 | Re: A bad behavior under autocommit off mode |