Re: [HACKERS] Idea for nested transactions / savepoints

[Tom Lane]

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?

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]