| From: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Avoid MVCC using exclusive lock possible? |
| Date: | 2004-03-01 13:54:10 |
| Message-ID: | 20040301135410.GA8345@phlogiston.dyndns.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 10:43:34AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> general I think our VACUUM-based approach is superior to the
> Oracle-style UNDO approach, because it pushes the maintenance overhead
> out of foreground transaction processing and into a schedulable
> background process. Certainly any Oracle DBA will tell you that huge
I completely agree with this. If the recent work on lowering the
overall cost ov VACUUM on loaded systems pays off, then I think there
can be no argument that the work-now, vacuum-later strategy is the
best approach, simply because it deals with the outlying and
unexpected cases better than the alternatives. I know too many
people who have been burned by running out of rollback segments when
some use pattern emerged that they hadn't planned for.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | ivan | 2004-03-01 14:11:30 | lib for clients |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-03-01 10:19:21 | Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal -- Summary to date |