RE: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem
От | Mikheev, Vadim |
---|---|
Тема | RE: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E32016637@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Plans for solving the VACUUM problem (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem
Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> > My point is that we'll need in dynamic cleanup anyway and UNDO is > > what should be implemented for dynamic cleanup of aborted changes. > > I do not yet understand why you want to handle aborts different than > outdated tuples. Maybe because of aborted tuples have shorter Time-To-Live. And probability to find pages for them in buffer pool is higher. > The ratio in a well tuned system should well favor outdated tuples. > If someone ever adds "dirty read" it is also not the case that it > is guaranteed, that nobody accesses the tuple you currently want > to undo. So I really miss to see the big difference. It will not be guaranteed anyway as soon as we start removing tuples without exclusive access to relation. And, I cannot say that I would implement UNDO because of 1. (cleanup) OR 2. (savepoints) OR 4. (pg_log management) but because of ALL of 1., 2., 4. Vadim
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: