Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem

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