Re: MVCC and all that...

From: Ellen Allhatatlan <ellenallhatatlan(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: MVCC and all that...
Date: 2025-09-09 17:31:05
Message-ID: CAMLfE0PbYk4WcXDydLJBaavtiimU=aMUKkyEHdC6izKKkHgP5g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

> > In part 1. Differences in MVCC implementation - he's saying that "It’s
> > not that the PostgreSQL implementation of MVCC is bad — it’s just
> > fundamentally different"

> It is written by someone @firebirdsql.org so one assumes a few grains of salt necessary.

I know - but the guy does stress that he's not knocking PostgreSQL,
just that there are differences.

However, it *_was_* my understanding that MVCC was implemented
similarly in PostgreSQL and Firebird - PG has VACUUM and FB has SWEEP.
Why would FB need SWEEP if it didn't have to clear up after
transactions - a problem that apparently doesn't affect Oracle/MySQL?

Oracle and MySQL (InnoDB) implement a different model (as does
Orioledb IIUC) where there's are UNDO/REDO logs.

So, my question is: Is FB's MVCC implementation fundamentally
different from that of PG or have I mixed things up?

Thanks for your input.

--

El!

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ellen Allhatatlan 2025-09-09 17:57:30 Re: MVCC and all that...
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2025-09-09 17:10:49 Re: MVCC and all that...