> > You mean it is restored in session that is running the transaction ?
Depends on what you mean with restored. It first reads the heap page,
sees that it needs an older version and thus reads it from the "rollback segment".
> >
> > I guess thet it could be slower than our current way of doing it.
>
> Yes, for older transactions which *really* need in *particular*
> old data, but not for newer ones. Look - now transactions have to read
> dead data again and again, even if some of them (newer) need not to see
> those data at all, and we keep dead data as long as required for other
> old transactions *just for the case* they will look there.
> But who knows?! Maybe those old transactions will not read from table
> with big amount of dead data at all! So - why keep dead data in datafiles
> for long time? This obviously affects overall system performance.
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.
Andreas
