RE: WAL versus Postgres (or: what goes around, comes ar ound)

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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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