Re: [HACKERS] proposals for LLL, part 1
| От | Bruce Momjian |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] proposals for LLL, part 1 |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 199807170515.BAA14911@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] proposals for LLL, part 1 (Vadim Mikheev <vadim@krs.ru>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
> Yes, this is very important question... > > In original postgres there was dedicated vacuum process... > Vacuuming without human administration is possible but > in any case commit in non-overwriting system requires > ~2 data block writes (first - to write changes, second - to > write updated xmin/xmax statuses). In WAL systems only > 1 data block write required... > > Ok, we have to decide two issues about what would we like > to use in future: > > 1. type of storage manager/transaction system - > > WAL or non-overwriting. Can you explain WAL. I understand locking vs. multi-version. -- Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 + If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w) + Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: