AW: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Zeugswetter Andreas SB
Subject AW: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem
Date
Msg-id 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA6879633682DA@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at
Whole thread Raw
List pgsql-hackers
> > Vadim, can you remind me what UNDO is used for?
> 4. Split pg_log into small files with ability to remove old ones (which
>    do not hold statuses for any running transactions).

They are already small (16Mb). Or do you mean even smaller ?
This imposes one huge risk, that is already a pain in other db's. You need
all logs of one transaction online. For a GigaByte transaction like a bulk
insert this can be very inconvenient. 
Imho there should be some limit where you can choose whether you want 
to continue without the feature (no savepoint) or are automatically aborted.

In any case, imho some thought should be put into this :-)

Another case where this is a problem is a client that starts a tx, does one little
insert or update on his private table, and then sits and waits for a day.

Both cases currently impose no problem whatsoever.

Andreas


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem
Next
From: Hannu Krosing
Date:
Subject: Re: RE: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem