From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
---|---|
To: | "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Savepoints |
Date: | 2002-01-23 23:22:42 |
Message-ID: | 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E32518483@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I have talked in the past about a possible implementation of
> savepoints/nested transactions. I would like to more formally outline
> my ideas below.
Well, I would like to do the same -:)
> ...
> There is no reason for other backend to be able to see savepoint undo
> information, and keeping it private greatly simplifies the
> implementation.
Yes... and requires additional memory/disk space: we keep old records
in data files and we'll store them again...
How about: use overwriting smgr + put old records into rollback
segments - RS - (you have to keep them somewhere till TX's running
anyway) + use WAL only as REDO log (RS will be used to rollback TX'
changes and WAL will be used for RS/data files recovery).
Something like what Oracle does.
Vadim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2002-01-23 23:30:07 | Re: RFD: schemas and different kinds of Postgres objects |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-23 23:16:12 | Checking for undefined in Perl interface code? |