Jan Wieck wrote:
> What's currently there doesn't have TT any more. So there is
> nothing we would destroy with an overwriting SMGR.
I know, but I wanted to resurrect it at some stage, and I think a lot of
important bits are still there.
> > * It's always faster than WAL in the presence of stable main memory.
> > (Whether the stable caches in modern disk drives is an approximation I
> > don't know).
>
> For writing, yes. But for high updated tables, the scans will
> soon slow down due to the junk contention.
I imagine highly updated applications won't be interested in time
travel. If they are then the alternative of a user-maintained time-stamp
and triggers will still leave you with "junk".
> > * Instantaneous crash recovery.
>
> Because this never worked reliable, Vadim is working on WAL.
Postgres recovery is not reliable?
