2016-11-25 1:44 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I think that the whole emphasis on whether and to what degree this is > >> like Oracle is somewhat misplaced. I would look at it a different > >> way. We've talked many times over the years about how PostgreSQL is > >> optimized for aborts. Everybody that I've heard comment on that issue > >> thinks that is a bad thing. > > > > > > again this depends on usage - when you have a possibility to run VACUUM, > > then this strategy is better. > > > > The fast aborts is one pretty good feature for stable usage. > > > > Isn't possible to use UNDO log (or something similar) for VACUUM? > ROLLBACK > > should be fast, but > > VACUUM can do more work? > > I think that in this design we wouldn't use VACUUM at all. However, > if what you are saying is that we should try to make aborts > near-instantaneous by pushing UNDO actions into the background, I > agree entirely. InnoDB already does that, IIUC. >
ok, it can be another process - that can be more aggressive and less limited than vacuum. Regards Pavel > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >
