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 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA6879633682E2@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at
Whole thread Raw
List 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I do not yet understand why you want to handle aborts different than outdated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. The ratio in a well tuned system should well favor outdated tuples.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.

Andreas


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Lamar Owen
Date:
Subject: Re: Using 7.1rc1 under RH 6.2
Next
From: "Mikheev, Vadim"
Date:
Subject: RE: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem