Re: UNDO and in-place update

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: UNDO and in-place update
Date: 2016-11-24 07:35:38
Message-ID: CAM3SWZRS5BV7TgTDG=PJJ1Ym7hSiA2yM7Fs0u_iDQZwoPwoT9Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
<tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> IMHO, overall, there should be pros and cons of the current approach and the new UNDo one (like Oracle?), depending on the workload. Under update-heavy workload, the UNDO method may be better. OTOH, under the mostly-INSERT workload (like data warehouse?), the current method will be better because it writes no log for UNDO.

I believe that you are correct about that.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2016-11-24 07:46:14 Re: Push down more full joins in postgres_fdw
Previous Message Tsunakawa, Takayuki 2016-11-24 07:32:47 Re: UNDO and in-place update