Re: [HACKERS] proposals for LLL, part 1 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [HACKERS] proposals for LLL, part 1
Date
Msg-id 199807170515.BAA14911@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] proposals for LLL, part 1  (Vadim Mikheev <vadim@krs.ru>)
List pgsql-hackers
> Yes, this is very important question...
>
> In original postgres there was dedicated vacuum process...
> Vacuuming without human administration is possible but
> in any case commit in non-overwriting system requires
> ~2 data block writes (first - to write changes, second - to
> write updated xmin/xmax statuses). In WAL systems only
> 1 data block write required...
>
> Ok, we have to decide two issues about what would we like
> to use in future:
>
> 1. type of storage manager/transaction system -
>
>    WAL or non-overwriting.

Can you explain WAL.  I understand locking vs. multi-version.

--
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Vadim Mikheev
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] proposals for LLL, part 1
Next
From: Hannu Krosing
Date:
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Re: [HACKERS] changes in 6.4