> > > It may be that WAL has changed the rollback
> > > time-characteristics to worse than pre-wal ?
> >
> > Nothing changed ... yet. And in future rollbacks
> > of read-only transactions will be as fast as now,
> > anyway.
>
> What about rollbacks of a bunch uf inserts/updates/deletes?
>
> I remember a scenario where an empty table was used
> by several backends for gathering report data, and
> when the report is done they will rollback to keep
> the table empty.
>
> Should this kind of usage be replaced in the future by
> having backend id as a key and then doing delete by that
> key in the end ?
Isn't it what we have right now?
But I believe that in future we must remove
modifications made by aborted transactions
immediately, without keeping them till vacuum.
So - yes: rollback of read-write transactions
will take longer time.
Vadim
-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
