Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem
От | Hannu Krosing |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3B128DD4.E15100AB@tm.ee обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | AW: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem (Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Vadim Mikheev wrote: > > > Yes, that is a good description. And old version is only required in the following > > two cases: > > > > 1. the txn that modified this tuple is still open (reader in default committed read) > > 2. reader is in serializable transaction isolation and has earlier xtid > > > > Seems overwrite smgr has mainly advantages in terms of speed for operations > > other than rollback. > > ... And rollback is required for < 5% transactions ... This obviously depends on application. I know people who rollback most of their transactions (actually they use it to emulate temp tables when reporting). OTOH it is possible to do without rolling back at all as MySQL folks have shown us ;) Also, IIRC, pgbench does no rollbacks. I think that we have no performance test that does. ----------------- Hannu
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: