On Dec 29, 2007, at 3:22 PM, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote at 2007-12-28 10:20 -0500:
...
There Berkely Database Storage supported automatic incremental
packing
without garbage collection. If someone were to revitalize that
effort
and if one was willing to do without cyclic
On Jan 2, 2008, at 1:30 PM, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote at 2007-12-29 16:06 -0500:
...
If you are at it: I think the lock which protects the finish test
is hold too long. Currently, it is just release for a very short
time
and then immeadiately reacquired. It should be safe to
Jim Fulton wrote at 2007-12-28 10:20 -0500:
...
There Berkely Database Storage supported automatic incremental packing
without garbage collection. If someone were to revitalize that effort
and if one was willing to do without cyclic garbage collection, then
that storage would remove the
On Dec 28, 2007, at 5:26 AM, Flavio Coelho wrote:
Hi, is there any way to minimize the need for database packing? I
wouldn't mind loosing the ability of undoing transactions.
There's a significant performance benefit to keeping some non-current
data to support multi-version concurrency
