| From: | Albert Cervera i Areny <albert(at)nan-tic(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: WORM and Read Only Tables (v0.1) |
| Date: | 2007-12-15 12:32:23 |
| Message-ID: | 200712151332.24318.albert@nan-tic.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 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.
--
Albert Cervera i Areny
http://www.NaN-tic.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gokulakannan Somasundaram | 2007-12-15 13:20:19 | Re: EXPLAIN ANALYZE printing logical and hardware I/O per-node |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2007-12-15 11:10:30 | Re: VLDB Features |