| From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Hiroshi Inoue'" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "'Zeugswetter Andreas SB'" <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | RE: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |
| Date: | 2001-05-24 17:57:19 |
| Message-ID: | 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E32016652@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I think so too. I've never said that an overwriting smgr
> is easy and I don't love it particularily.
>
> What I'm objecting is to avoid UNDO without giving up
> an overwriting smgr. We shouldn't be noncommittal now.
Why not? We could decide to do overwriting smgr later
and implement UNDO then. For the moment we could just
change checkpointer to use checkpoint.redo instead of
checkpoint.undo when defining what log files should be
deleted - it's a few minutes deal, and so is changing it
back.
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oliver Elphick | 2001-05-24 17:57:50 | Re: Smaller access privilege changes |
| Previous Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2001-05-24 17:57:04 | Re: Not released yet, but could someone take a quick peak ... |