| From: | "Vadim Mikheev" <vmikheev(at)sectorbase(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB" <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>, "'Hannu Krosing'" <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
| 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>, "The Hermit Hacker" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |
| Date: | 2001-05-28 17:11:10 |
| Message-ID: | 007001c0e799$321dcc00$4a79583f@sectorbase.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Yes, that is a good description. And old version is only required in the following
> two cases:
>
> 1. the txn that modified this tuple is still open (reader in default committed read)
> 2. reader is in serializable transaction isolation and has earlier xtid
>
> Seems overwrite smgr has mainly advantages in terms of speed for operations
> other than rollback.
... And rollback is required for < 5% transactions ...
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vadim Mikheev | 2001-05-28 17:15:17 | Re: AW: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |
| Previous Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2001-05-28 17:07:20 | Regression tes for R-tree |