From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Holger Marzen <holger(at)marzen(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Article in German iX magazine |
Date: | 2004-01-23 20:59:33 |
Message-ID: | 4002.1074891573@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-announce pgsql-general |
Holger Marzen <holger(at)marzen(dot)de> writes:
> in the German magazine "iX" from Feb 2004 I read an article about Open
> Source databases. The part about PostgreSQL wasn't bad but I am not sure
> if the author is right when he writes about crash revcovery. He writes
> that PostgreSQL has no UNDO function that resets unfinished transactions
> after a crash but only a REDO function that finishes completed
> transactions.
> I thought that PostgreSQL's crash recovery automatically rolls back
> everything that's not committed.
That is correct. It is also correct that we don't need an explicit UNDO
operation to make it happen --- the correct behavior falls out of MVCC
support automatically, and we leave it to a subsequent VACUUM to reclaim
any space that can be reclaimed.
If the author stated that the lack of UNDO caused us not to be
crash-correct, he's wrong, but he is correct that there's no UNDO code.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ezra Epstein | 2004-01-23 21:50:03 | feature request? expanded SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION |
Previous Message | Holger Marzen | 2004-01-23 19:44:57 | Article in German iX magazine |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ezra Epstein | 2004-01-23 21:50:03 | feature request? expanded SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2004-01-23 20:51:29 | Re: sequence in schema -- broken default |