On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 10:43:34AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> general I think our VACUUM-based approach is superior to the
> Oracle-style UNDO approach, because it pushes the maintenance overhead
> out of foreground transaction processing and into a schedulable
> background process. Certainly any Oracle DBA will tell you that huge
I completely agree with this. If the recent work on lowering the
overall cost ov VACUUM on loaded systems pays off, then I think there
can be no argument that the work-now, vacuum-later strategy is the
best approach, simply because it deals with the outlying and
unexpected cases better than the alternatives. I know too many
people who have been burned by running out of rollback segments when
some use pattern emerged that they hadn't planned for.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan