| From: | Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
| Cc: | chris(at)bitmead(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] An introduction and a plea ... |
| Date: | 2000-02-07 01:23:27 |
| Message-ID: | 389E1E8F.DBDDEDE3@nimrod.itg.telecom.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > > The same kind of file could be used for re_introducing time-travel in an
> > > efficient way.
> >
> > How?
>
> By writing (TID,TIMESTAMP) tuples there and using that info to retrieve tuples
> active at specified time by examinimg TIDs in "deleted" tuples.
> As bot TID and TIMESTAMP should be monotonuously growing again binary search
> can be used on retrieve and inserts are append-only (meaning fast)
But since we are already storing all the time travel stuff already in
the
storage pages do we need this to reinstate time travel? Also if you
reinstate
time travel this way it will only work for people using this odbms
feature.
Wouldn't it be better to reinstate the old timetravel so it works for
everyone?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2000-02-07 01:26:00 | Re: [HACKERS] An introduction and a plea ... |
| Previous Message | Ross J. Reedstrom | 2000-02-07 01:13:39 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Status of inheritance-changing patch |