Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC

From: "Mark Woodward" <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>
To: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Heikki Linnakangas" <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "Jan Wieck" <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Csaba Nagy" <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, "Hannu Krosing" <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, "Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, "postgres hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC
Date: 2006-06-24 14:53:43
Message-ID: 18682.24.91.171.78.1151160823.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 6/24/06, Mark Woodward <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> wrote:
>> In the scenario, as previously outlined:
>>
>> ver001->verN->...->ver003->ver2->|
>> ^-----------------------------/
>
> So you want to always keep an old version around?

Prior to vacuum, it will be there anyway, and after vacuum, the new
version will become ver001.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-06-24 14:54:00 Re: cygwin breakage (was: GPL Source and Copyright Questions)
Previous Message Mark Woodward 2006-06-24 14:21:02 Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC