From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
Cc: | "'Mikheev, Vadim'" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: AW: AW: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |
Date: | 2001-05-30 20:16:24 |
Message-ID: | 200105302016.f4UKGOr21471@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I have relucantly added this UNDO/VACUUM thread to TODO.detail. People
can review the discussion via a link on the TODO page or in CVS.
Whenever we resolve this issue, I will gladly remove these emails.
>
> > > > > So are whole pages stored in rollback segments or just
> > > > > the modified data?
> > > >
> > > > This is implementation dependent. Storing whole pages is
> > > > much easy to do, but obviously it's better to store just
> > > > modified data.
> > >
> > > I am not sure it is necessarily better. Seems to be a tradeoff here.
> > > pros of whole pages:
> > > a possible merge with physical log (for first
> > > modification of a page after checkpoint
> > > there would be no overhead compared to current
> > > since it is already written now)
> >
> > Using WAL as RS data storage is questionable.
>
> No, I meant the other way around. Move the physical log pages away from WAL
> files to the "rollback segment" (imho "snapshot area" would be a better name)
>
> > > in a clever implementation a page already in the
> > > "rollback segment" might satisfy the
> > > modification of another row on that page, and
> > > thus would not need any additional io.
> >
> > This would be possible only if there was no commit (same SCN)
> > between two modifications.
>
> I don't think someone else's commit matters unless it touches the same page.
> In that case a reader would possibly need to chain back to an older version
> inside the snapshot area, and then it gets complicated even in the whole page
> case. A good concept could probably involve both whole page and change
> only, and let the optimizer decide what to do.
>
> > But, aren't we too deep on overwriting smgr (O-smgr) implementation?
>
> Yes, but some understanding of the possibilities needs to be sorted out
> to allow good decicsions, no ?
>
> Andreas
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-05-30 20:35:23 | Re: First version of multi-key index support for GiST |
Previous Message | Ian Lance Taylor | 2001-05-30 20:13:44 | Re: Support for %TYPE in CREATE FUNCTION |