Re: WORM and Read Only Tables (v0.1)

From: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Albert Cervera i Areny <albert(at)nan-tic(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: WORM and Read Only Tables (v0.1)
Date: 2007-12-19 11:35:39
Message-ID: 1198064139.6939.1.camel@hannu-laptop
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Ühel kenal päeval, E, 2007-12-17 kell 09:20, kirjutas Simon Riggs:
> On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 13:32 +0100, Albert Cervera i Areny wrote:
> > > Read-Only Tables
> > > ----------------
> > > Postgres supports the concept of freezing tuples, so they can live
> > > forever within the database without needing further writes. Currently
> > > there is no command that will guarantee that a table has been completely
> > > frozen. This makes it difficult to reliably write data files to WORM
> > > media for longer term archiving. (WORM means Write-Once, Read-Many).
> > > It's also a pain having to VACUUM a large table again just because a
> > > small number of rows need to be frozen.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not an expert at all, but I'd like to understand this, do you plan that
> > READ-ONLY tables wouldn't even store transaction information? That should
> > save quite a lot of space. Maybe when the table would be moved to the
> > compressed tablespace, MVCC information could be dropped too? Of course that
> > would avoid future insert & update possibilities though.
>
> It could, but its a lot of work for little gain. The tuple headers look
> like they will compress fairly well, so why bother to remove them at
> all?

One place for removing them would be if we do column-stores where there
would be one header per column instead of one per tuple.

--------------
Hannu

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Joseph Krogh 2007-12-19 12:02:16 Re: Sorting Improvements for 8.4
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2007-12-19 11:25:36 Testing mail list