| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Vadim Mikheev'" <vmikheev(at)sectorbase(dot)com>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | AW: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |
| Date: | 2001-05-21 16:11:16 |
| Message-ID: | 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA6879633682E2@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> My point is that we'll need in dynamic cleanup anyway and UNDO is
> what should be implemented for dynamic cleanup of aborted changes.
I do not yet understand why you want to handle aborts different than outdated
tuples. The ratio in a well tuned system should well favor outdated tuples.
If someone ever adds "dirty read" it is also not the case that it is guaranteed,
that nobody accesses the tuple you currently want to undo. So I really miss to see
the big difference.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2001-05-21 16:22:47 | AW: AW: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |
| Previous Message | Lamar Owen | 2001-05-21 16:11:15 | Re: Using 7.1rc1 under RH 6.2 |