| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
| Cc: | "'Don Baccus'" <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, 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 20:51:06 |
| Message-ID: | 3B0D743A.B57B76A0@tm.ee |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Mikheev, Vadim" wrote:
>
> > >> Impractical ? Oracle does it.
> > >
> > >Oracle has MVCC?
> >
> > With restrictions, yes.
>
> What restrictions? Rollback segments size?
> Non-overwriting smgr can eat all disk space...
Is'nt the same true for an overwriting smgr ? ;)
> > You didn't know that? Vadim did ...
>
> Didn't I mention a few times that I was
> inspired by Oracle? -:)
How does it do MVCC with an overwriting storage manager ?
Could it possibly be a Postgres-inspired bolted-on hack
needed for better concurrency ?
BTW, are you aware how Interbase does its MVCC - is it more
like Oracle's way or like PostgreSQL's ?
----------------
Hannu
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2001-05-24 21:05:19 | Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-05-24 20:05:44 | Re: Smaller access privilege changes |