Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: PGSQL Locking vs. Oracle's MVCC
- From: "Albe Laurenz" <all(at)adv(dot)magwien(dot)gv(dot)at>
- To: "RPK *EXTERN*" <rohitprakash123(at)indiatimes(dot)com>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
- Subject: Re: PGSQL Locking vs. Oracle's MVCC
- Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:16:53 +0100
- Message-id: <AFCCBB403D7E7A4581E48F20AF3E5DB201597D7C(at)EXADV1(dot)host(dot)magwien(dot)gv(dot)at>
> How is PGSQL Locking compared with Oracle's MVCC? How PGSQL handles > concurreny and how it differs with Oracle's Multi-Version Concurrency > Control (MVCC)? In PostgreSQL, old rows remain in the table until the table is vacuumed. In Oracle, old rows are kept in the 'undo table space' until - well, until the undo table space runs out and they are recycled. Depends. I have never heard this referred to as 'MVCC'. Locking and concurrency work pretty similar in both - at least as far as the behaviour is concerned. Yours, Laurenz Albe
- References:
- PGSQL Locking vs. Oracle's MVCC
- From: RPK
- PGSQL Locking vs. Oracle's MVCC
- Prev by Date: Re: Large Objects
- Next by Date: Re: complex referential integrity constraints
- Previous by thread: Re: PGSQL Locking vs. Oracle's MVCC
- Next by thread: Re: PGSQL Locking vs. Oracle's MVCC
- Indexes: