| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vadim Mikheev <vadim4o(at)email(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Schmidt, Peter" <peter(dot)schmidt(at)prismedia(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance |
| Date: | 2001-02-23 15:00:21 |
| Message-ID: | 3A967B05.9030609@tm.ee |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Vadim Mikheev wrote:
>> Should this kind of usage be replaced in the future by
>> having backend id as a key and then doing delete by that
>> key in the end ?
>
>
> Isn't it what we have right now?
I meant doing it at the application level, not what backend does internally.
Like we are supposed to implement time-travel now that it is (mostly)
gone from core functionality :c)
> But I believe that in future we must remove
> modifications made by aborted transactions
> immediately, without keeping them till vacuum.
> So - yes: rollback of read-write transactions
> will take longer time.
but will
INSERT-DELETE-COMMIT
take longer than
INSERT-ABORT
?
----------------
Hannu
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-02-23 15:29:59 | Re: Lock structures |
| Previous Message | Vadim Mikheev | 2001-02-23 14:41:57 | Re: RE: Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance |