| From: | Yves Darmaillac <yves(dot)darmaillac(at)club-internet(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Avoid MVCC using exclusive lock possible? |
| Date: | 2004-03-25 13:04:41 |
| Message-ID: | 4062D8E9.8020009@club-internet.fr |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Sullivan a écrit :
>On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 10:43:34AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>
>>general I think our VACUUM-based approach is superior to the
>>Oracle-style UNDO approach, because it pushes the maintenance overhead
>>out of foreground transaction processing and into a schedulable
>>background process. Certainly any Oracle DBA will tell you that huge
>>
>>
>
>I completely agree with this. If the recent work on lowering the
>overall cost ov VACUUM on loaded systems pays off, then I think there
>can be no argument that the work-now, vacuum-later strategy is the
>best approach, simply because it deals with the outlying and
>unexpected cases better than the alternatives. I know too many
>people who have been burned by running out of rollback segments when
>some use pattern emerged that they hadn't planned for.
>
>A
>
I agree too. The VACUUM aproach is better as it reduces fragmentation
and chained rows due to columns size change.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-03-25 13:05:05 | Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite) |
| Previous Message | Andreas Pflug | 2004-03-25 11:38:53 | Re: pg_advisor schema proof of concept |