RE: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem
От | Mikheev, Vadim |
---|---|
Тема | RE: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E32016656@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
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> Do we want to head for an overwriting storage manager? > > Not sure. > > Advantages: UPDATE has easy space reuse because usually done > in-place, no index change on UPDATE unless key is changed. > > Disadvantages: Old records have to be stored somewhere for MVCC use. > Could limit transaction size. Really? Why is it assumed that we *must* limit size of rollback segments? We can let them grow without bounds, as we do now keeping old records in datafiles and letting them eat all of disk space. > UNDO disadvantages are: > > Limit size of transactions to log storage size. Don't be kidding - in any system transactions size is limitted by available storage. So we should tell that more disk space is required for UNDO. From my POV, putting $100 to buy 30Gb disk is not big deal, keeping in mind that PGSQL requires $ZERO to be used. Vadim
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: