| From: | Christophe Pettus <xof(at)thebuild(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | veem v <veema0000(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Database selection |
| Date: | 2023-09-20 21:18:02 |
| Message-ID: | E479B652-9356-41D2-87E9-56D6C9555163@thebuild.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> On Sep 20, 2023, at 14:11, veem v <veema0000(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Does AWS aurora postgres depend on the same vacuuming technology for maintaining the transactions?
Yes. Aurora has replaced the PostgreSQL storage engine, but the MVCC part is largely the same. The issues with vacuuming are largely overstated, though, and alternative system for concurrency control have their own issues.
> Does Aurora Mysql opt for a similar strategy for transaction management? or any different/better ones?
That's probably best addressed to a MySQL-oriented list, or directly to Amazon.
It should be noted that Aurora is a commercial product, and much of it is closed-source. User communities will have somewhat limited ability to offer advice about it.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2023-09-20 21:24:35 | Re: Changed functionality from 14.3 to 15.3 |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2023-09-20 21:16:15 | Re: [EXT]Re: Connection not allowed because of an error 'Not in pg_hba.conf' |