Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC

On 6/24/06, Mark Woodward <pgsql@mohawksoft.com> wrote:
> > On 6/24/06, Mark Woodward <pgsql@mohawksoft.com> wrote:
> >> In the scenario, as previously outlined:
> >>
> >> ver001->verN->...->ver003->ver2->|
> >>   ^-----------------------------/
> >
> > So you want to always keep an old version around?
>
> Prior to vacuum, it will be there anyway, and after vacuum, the new
> version will become ver001.

So you do intend to move verN into ver001's slot?  What about the
other conditions you had mentioned where you have to follow
PostgreSQL's current behavior?  How are you going to have a pointer
chain in that case?


-- 
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1300
EnterpriseDB Corporation            | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 2nd Floor            | jharris@enterprisedb.com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830            | http://www.enterprisedb.com/