Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> >> I guess that is the question. Are we heading for an overwriting storage
> >> manager?
>
> > I've never heard that it was given up. So there seems to be
> > at least a possibility to introduce it in the future.
>
> Unless we want to abandon MVCC (which I don't), I think an overwriting
> smgr is impractical.
Impractical ? Oracle does it.
> We need a more complex space-reuse scheme than
> that.
>
IMHO we have to decide which to go now.
As I already mentioned, changing current handling
of transactionId/CommandId to avoid UNDO is not
only useless but also harmful for an overwriting
smgr.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
