| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Pluggable storage |
| Date: | 2017-07-19 17:56:49 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZwsjtEprvXrTU5FmiN=Gi8i_x_gYjWzi5woOscUDqgiw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> To repeat myself, for emphasis: *Not all bloat is equal*.
+1.
> I strongly agree. I simply don't understand how you can adopt UNDO for
> MVCC, and yet expect to get a benefit commensurate with the effort
> without also implementing "retail index tuple deletion" first.
I agree that we need retail index tuple deletion. I liked Claudio's
idea at http://postgr.es/m/CAGTBQpZ-kTRQiAa13xG1GNe461YOwrA-s-ycCQPtyFrpKTaDBQ@mail.gmail.com
-- that seems indispensible to making retail index tuple deletion
reasonably efficient. Is anybody going to work on getting that
committed?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-07-19 18:05:39 | Re: Using non-sequential timelines in order to help with possible collisions |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-07-19 17:53:24 | Re: Pluggable storage |