Re: [HACKERS] WAL & SHM principles

2001-03-19 Thread Martin Devera
> > When you mmap, you don't use write() ! mlock actualy locks page in > > memory and as long as the page is locked the OS doesn't attempt to > > store the dirty page. It is intended also for security app to > > ensure that sensitive data are not written to unsecure storage > > (hdd). It is defi

RE: [HACKERS] WAL & SHM principles

2001-03-09 Thread Martin Devera
> > Pros: upper layers can think thet buffers are always safe/logged and > > there is no special handling for indices; very simple/fast redo > > Cons: can't implement undo - but in non-overwriting is not needed (?) > > But needed if we want to get rid of vacuum and have savepoints. Hmm. Ho

Re: [HACKERS] WAL & SHM principles

2001-03-09 Thread Martin Devera
> > BTW, what means "bummer" ? > > Sorry, it means, "Oh, I am disappointed." thanks :) > > But for many OSes you CAN control when to write data - you can mlock > > individual pages. > > mlock() controls locking in physical memory. I don't see it controling > write(). When you mmap, you don't

Re: [HACKERS] WAL & SHM principles

2001-03-08 Thread Martin Devera
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The only problem is that we would no longer have control over which > > > pages made it to disk. The OS would perhaps write pages as we modified > > > them. Not sure how important that is. > > > > Unfortunately, this alone is a *fatal* objecti

Re: [HACKERS] WAL & SHM principles

2001-03-07 Thread Martin Devera
> This was brought up a week ago, and I consider it an interesting idea. > The only problem is that we would no longer have control over which > pages made it to disk. The OS would perhaps write pages as we modified > them. Not sure how important that is. Yes. As I work on linux kernel I know

[HACKERS] WAL & SHM principles

2001-03-07 Thread Martin Devera
Hello, maybe I missed something, but in last days I was thinking how would I write my own sql server. I got several ideas and because these are not used in PG they are probably bad - but I can't figure why. 1) WAL We have buffer manager, ok. So why not to use WAL as part of it and don't log INSE

[HACKERS] optimizer/planner ideas (repost)

2001-02-06 Thread Martin Devera
Hello, probably you remember my crazy idea involving using indexes directly in scans (and resulting speedup). The idea was given to me by experiences with M$SQL (it is yes another M$ soft but its planner is probably better than pg's - no flames please). Because I studied M$ again I've got another