From: | Stefan Keller <sfkeller(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)redhat(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Postgres as In-Memory Database? |
Date: | 2014-04-07 08:29:33 |
Message-ID: | CAFcOn2_eDN2-BaP3mP_uD6fNrQOQQUk5LX1tcYwbDdqFp6fESw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi Florian
Thanks for the remark. I've seen recently somebody from the "core" team
(was it at PgCon Rev Meeting [1] or a blog) mentioning it meaning to revive
it?
Yours, Stefan
[1] http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PgCon_2013_Developer_Meeting
2014-04-07 8:15 GMT+02:00 Florian Weimer <fweimer(at)redhat(dot)com>:
> On 04/02/2014 12:32 AM, Stefan Keller wrote:
>
> It also mentions an insert-only technique: "This approach has been
>> adopted before in POSTGRES [21] in 1987 and was called "time-travel".
>> I would be interested what "time-travel" is and if this is still used by
>> Postgres.
>>
>
> Back in the old days, PostgreSQL never deleted any tuples. Rows were
> deleted by writing the deletion time into a column. As a result, you could
> go back to old data just by telling PostgreSQL to report rows which where
> visible at a given time.
>
> Obviously, this approach precluded use of PostgreSQL in many scenarios.
> For example, you wouldn't want to use it as your web application session
> store.
>
> --
> Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stefan Keller | 2014-04-07 08:51:15 | Re: Postgres as In-Memory Database? |
Previous Message | Florian Weimer | 2014-04-07 06:15:38 | Re: Postgres as In-Memory Database? |