On 10/23/07, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We never actually considred undo > > I did, but eventually ruled it out during the HOT design process. But > then I considered a ton of other things and ruled them out also. > > Can't see a reason to bring it up again, so perhaps we should add it to > the definitely don't want list. Don't *need* would be better.
Actually, my initial UNDO design and prototype had several other advantages over HOT (better performance, inherent time-travel, smaller on-disk footprint, and *no* vacuum). The major issue was due to the amount of architecture changes Postgres would've required and Bruce's advice regarding the community's inability to accept such a large and complex change. -- Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Edison, NJ 08837 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
