From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
---|---|
To: | "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | RE: WAL versus Postgres (or: what goes around, comes ar ound) |
Date: | 2000-05-15 20:23:29 |
Message-ID: | 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A23018BDB@SECTORBASE1 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > I've read this paper ~2 years ago. My plans so far were:
> >
> > 1. WAL in 7.1
> > 2. New (overwriting) storage manager in 7.2
> >
>
> Oh, so Vadim has overwriting storage manager concept for 7.2.
> Vadim, how will you keep old rows around for MVCC?
Just like you told about it - some outstanding files for old
versions. Something like Oracle' rollback segments.
And, for sure, this will be the most complex part of smgr and
that's why I think that we can't use their smgr if we're
going to keep MVCC.
As for WAL, WAL itself (as collection of routines to log changes,
create checkpoints etc) is 90% done. Now it has to be integrated
into system and the most hard part of this work are access methods
specific redo/undo functions. If we're going to use our access
methods then we'll have to write these functions for no matter
what WAL implementation will be used.
Vadim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2000-05-15 20:27:07 | RE: Proposal: replace no-overwrite with Berkeley DB |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-05-15 19:55:08 | Re: Proposal: replace no-overwrite with Berkeley DB |