| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |
| Date: | 2001-05-19 03:12:41 |
| Message-ID: | 200105190312.f4J3Cfs14576@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Another thought: do we need WAL UNDO at all to implement savepoints?
> Is there some way we could do them like nested transactions, wherein
> each savepoint-to-savepoint segment is given its own transaction number?
> Committing multiple xact IDs at once might be a little tricky, but it
> seems like a narrow, soluble problem. Implementing UNDO without
> creating lots of performance issues looks a lot harder.
I am confused why we can't implement subtransactions as part of our
command counter? The counter is already 4 bytes long. Couldn't we
rollback to counter number X-10?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-05-19 03:15:13 | Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2001-05-19 03:05:28 | Re: External search engine, advice |