> According to the postgres research papers, the no-overwrite storage
> manager has the following attributes...
But don't forget about conclusion they made...
> * It's always faster than WAL in the presence of stable main memory.
> (Whether the stable caches in modern disk drives is an approximation I
> don't know).
And much slower in the absence...
> * It's more scalable and has less logging contention. This allows
> greater scalablility in the presence of multiple processors.
We can implement multiple log files (on different disks) someday.
The only contention will be for reading/changing some number
(required for recoverer to read logs in right order)...
> * Instantaneous crash recovery.
And slow vacuum...
> * Time travel is available at no cost.
We told about that already.
> * Easier to code and prove correctness. (I used to work for a database
> company that implemented WAL, and it took them a large number of years
> before they supposedly corrected every bug and crash condition on
> recovery).
The only plus for me -:)
Vadim