| From: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "'Zeugswetter Andreas SB'" <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | RE: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |
| Date: | 2001-05-24 18:16:46 |
| Message-ID: | 3.0.1.32.20010524111646.01776100@mail.pacifier.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 10:00 AM 5/24/01 -0700, Mikheev, Vadim wrote:
>> >> Impractical ? Oracle does it.
>> >
>> >Oracle has MVCC?
>>
>> With restrictions, yes.
>
>What restrictions? Rollback segments size?
>Non-overwriting smgr can eat all disk space...
Actually, the restriction I'm thinking about isn't MVCC related, per
se, but a within-transaction restriction. The infamous "mutating table"
error.
>> You didn't know that? Vadim did ...
>
>Didn't I mention a few times that I was
>inspired by Oracle? -:)
Yes, you most certainly have!
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Kuczek | 2001-05-24 18:17:15 | Re: Re: Shared memory for RH Linux 7.1 |
| Previous Message | Lamar Owen | 2001-05-24 18:09:23 | Re: Not released yet, but could someone take a quick peak ... |