> >> Given all the flak we got about WAL growth during the time we had that
> >> code enabled, I think there's no chance that UNDO will be the preferred
> >> path. It's not workable with big transactions.
>
> > Somehow it's working in other DB systems.
>
> Isn't limited UNDO segment size one of the most-hated management
> problems for Oracle databases? I don't see why we should want to
> duplicate one of their worst problems.
How is it different from disk-space appetite of our non-overwriting smgr?!
Before transaction commits you have to keep old data somewhere anyway.
Let's not limit size of UNDO segments and that's it.
Vadim