Added to TODO.detail/transactions as a nested transaction idea.
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >> 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 i
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >> 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?
> >
> > > Sure, we can put on th
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> 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?
>
> > Sure, we can pu
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> 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?
>
> > Sure, we can put on the disk if th
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 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?
> Sure, we can put on the disk if that is better
> 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
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
I have been thinking about how to implement nested transactions /
savepoints. As you may remember, Vadim wants to add UNDO to WAL and
thus enable this feature.
Some objected because of the added WAL complexity and the problem with
long running transactions requiring lots of WAL segments.
I have
