Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC

On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 03:29:47AM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
> >It sounds like everybody agrees that things need to be fixed, and genuinely
> >motivated people are trying to offer what they have to the table.
> One singe core team member responds vaguely in a way, you feel being
> supportive of your case, and you conclude that "everybody agrees"?
> Sorry, x'use me?

> There are a couple of side effects on this "update in place" issue that
> aren't even mentioned yet. Nobody with any significant in depth
> knowledge of the Postgres non-overwriting storage engine concept seems
> to suggest any move towards a storage system, that does updates in place
> that require "undo" operations in case of a process/system failure.
> You're ready to "fix" all those places to support the undo you need? You
> must have a big table.

Jan: Who on the list has claimed that nothing is broken and nothing needs
to be improved? Are you making this claim?

Shutting down ideas is not constructive. Encouraging those with ideas to
step up and do more than talk could be.

Cheers,
mark

--
mark(at)mielke(dot)cc / markm(at)ncf(dot)ca / markm(at)nortel(dot)com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...

http://mark.mielke.cc/