> > * It's always faster than WAL in the presence of stable main memory.
> > (Whether the stable caches in modern disk drives is an
> approximation I
> > don't know).
>
> For writing, yes. But for high updated tables, the scans will
> soon slow down due to the junk contention.
Can you elaborate please ? If we centralized writes, then the
non-overwrite smgr would be very efficient since it only writes to the end
of a table (e.g. one page write for pagesize/rowsize rows).
>
> > * It's more scalable and has less logging contention. This allows
> > greater scalablility in the presence of multiple processors.
> >
> > * Instantaneous crash recovery.
>
> Because this never worked reliable, Vadim is working on WAL
crash recovery is bullet proof. the WAL is only needed for rollforward
after restore with our non overwrite smgr.
I do agree that we need a txlog.
Andreas
