Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >
> > The bottom line is that the original postgres time-travel implementation
> > was totally cost-free. Actually it may have even speeded things
> > up since vacuum would have less work to do. Can you convince me that
> > triggers can compare anywhere near for performance? I can't see how.
> > All I'm asking is don't damage anything that is in postgres now that
> > is relevant to time-travel in your quest for WAL....
>
> Basically, time travel was getting in the way of more requested features
Do you mean way back when it was removed? How was it getting in the way?
> that had to be added. Keeping it around has a cost, and no one felt the
> cost was worth the benefit. You may disagree, but at the time, that was
> the consensus, and I assume it still is.
