Satoshi Nagayasu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm *really* *really* interested in making PostgreSQL to be vacuum-less. > Can we have a vacuum-less PostgreSQL in the future? How?
I don't foresee that ever happening. AFAICS a non-vacuuming MVCC system would have to be implemented just like Oracle (ie, rollback segments) and as any Oracle DBA will tell you, that has plenty of drawbacks of its own. Not to mention that Oracle probably has a few key patents in that area. Updating a database with transaction safety requires overhead, and you're going to pay for that overhead somewhere. We've chosen to pay for it via vacuum. I think that's a good system design in the abstract --- for one thing, it keeps the overhead cost out of the foreground transaction-processing code paths. Of course we'll continue to whittle away at the problem of making vacuum less objectionable --- autovacuum, reducing its i/o demand, etc --- but I don't foresee us making a 180degree course correction on such a fundamental design choice. You can find plenty of discussion of this in past threads in the pgsql-hackers archives. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly