Re: =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCflYlaSVKJWQbKEI=?=: [HACKERS] Otvet: WAL and indexes (Re: [HACKERS] WAL status & todo)

"Mikheev, Vadim" wrote:

> >> One of the purposes of WAL is immediate removing tuples
> >> inserted by aborted xactions. I want make VACUUM
> >> *optional* in future - space must be available for
> >> reusing without VACUUM. And this is first, very small,
> >> step in this direction.
> >
> >Why would vacuum become optional? Would WAL offer an option to
> >not reclaim free space? We're hoping that vacuum becomes unneeded
>
> Reclaiming free space is issue of storage manager, as
> I said here many times. WAL is just Write A-head Log
> (first write to log then to data files, to have ability
> to recover using log data) and for matter of space it can
> only help to delete tuples inserted by aborted transaction.
>
> >when postgresql is run with some flag indicating that we're
> >uninterested in time travel.
>
> Time travel is gone ~ 3 years ago and vacuum was needed all
> these years and will be needed to reclaim space in 7.1
>
> >How much longer do you estimate until you can make it work that way?
>
> Hopefully in 7.2
>

Just a confirmation.
Do you plan overwrite storage manager also in 7.2 ?

Hiroshi Inoue