Re: nested transactions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: nested transactions
Date: 2002-11-29 05:56:02
Message-ID: 20262.1038549362@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> But we already have a recycling mechanism for pg_clog. AFAICS,
>> creating a parallel log file with a separate recycling mechanism is
>> a study in wasted effort.

> But that recycling requires the vacuum of every database in the system.
> Do people do that frequently enough?

Once the auto vacuum code is in there, they won't have any choice ;-)

In any case, I saw no part of your proposal that removed the need for
vacuum, so what's your point?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Prasanna Phadke 2002-11-29 06:27:13 How to compile postgres source code in VC++
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-11-29 05:53:26 Re: nested transactions