| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, "'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 02:22:00 |
| Message-ID: | 3B0C7048.902DD407@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Don Baccus wrote:
>
> At 08:15 AM 5/24/01 +0900, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>
> >> Unless we want to abandon MVCC (which I don't), I think an overwriting
> >> smgr is impractical.
> >
> >Impractical ? Oracle does it.
>
> It's not easy, though ... the current PG scheme has the advantage of being
> relatively simple and probably more efficient than scanning logs like
> Oracle has to do (assuming your datafiles aren't thoroughly clogged with
> old dead tuples).
>
I think so too. I've never said that an overwriting smgr
is easy and I don't love it particularily.
What I'm objecting is to avoid UNDO without giving up
an overwriting smgr. We shouldn't be noncommittal now.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Reid | 2001-05-24 02:35:47 | uml diagrams of system catalogues |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2001-05-24 01:34:20 | RE: DROP CONSTRAINT patch |