> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > My idea is that we not put UNDO information into WAL but keep a List of
> > rel ids / tuple ids in the memory of each backend and do the undo inside
> > the backend.
>
> The complaints about WAL size amount to "we don't have the disk space
> to keep track of this, for long-running transactions". If it doesn't
> fit on disk, how likely is it that it will fit in memory?
Sure, we can put on the disk if that is better. I thought the problem
with WAL undo is that you have to keep UNDO info around for all
transactions that are older than the earliest transaction. So, if I
start a nested transaction, and then sit at a prompt for 8 hours, all
WAL logs are kept for 8 hours.
We can create a WAL file for every backend, and record just the nested
transaction information. In fact, once a nested transaction finishes,
we don't need the info anymore. Certainly we don't need to flush these
to disk.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
