From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Roberts, Jon" <Jon(dot)Roberts(at)asurion(dot)com> |
Cc: | Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: How is statement level read consistency implemented? |
Date: | 2008-04-22 13:35:29 |
Message-ID: | 20080422133529.GD5130@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Roberts, Jon wrote:
> > > -With autovacuum, does it skip these rows still being referenced
> > > in a transaction or does it wait?
> >
> > It skips them, the idea being that a future vacuum will remove them.
>
> Awesome. In a large data warehouse, the snapshot too old error is very
> annoying and I'm glad PostgreSQL is superior to Oracle in this regard.
> :)
Well, the disadvantage of the PostgreSQL way is that it keeps dead rows
around for longer than they're actually needed, and so it causes some
problems in pathological conditions -- for example when setting up large
replication sets with Slony, or during a pg_dump, no dead rows can be
removed. Since the Slony thing can take a very long time, dead rows
start to pile up in a way that can really harm performance.
We're currently working on it so that it is less of a problem for 8.4 ...
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kerri Reno | 2008-04-22 13:35:43 | Re: FW: Re: create temp in function |
Previous Message | Kerri Reno | 2008-04-22 13:26:58 | Re: FW: Re: create temp in function |