Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff
От | Vadim Mikheev |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 006201c2ee99$1cfa06f0$15f5fea9@home обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> Given all the flak we got about WAL growth during the time we had that > code enabled, I think there's no chance that UNDO will be the preferred > path. It's not workable with big transactions. Somehow it's working in other DB systems. > There are other problems besides WAL bloat, too. I realized while I was > working on the btree code a few weeks ago that it's fundamentally > unfriendly to UNDO, because there are some operations you'd want to > UNDO (viz, insertion of a leaf item pointing at a heap tuple) and some > you would not (viz, splitting of index pages and subsequent insertion of > items into upper tree levels). But the same WAL entry might include > both kinds of operation. This could be got round, perhaps, but that > code is overcomplicated already ... Each access-method requires specific UNDO code (like REDO). Once again, it works in other DB-es. Vadim
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: