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!
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... |