> > And, I cannot say that I would implement UNDO because of
> > 1. (cleanup) OR 2. (savepoints) OR 4. (pg_log management)
> > but because of ALL of 1., 2., 4.
> 
> OK, I understand your reasoning here, but I want to make a comment.
> 
> Looking at the previous features you added, like subqueries, MVCC, or
> WAL, these were major features that greatly enhanced the system's
> capabilities.
> 
> Now, looking at UNDO, I just don't see it in the same league as those
> other additions.  Of course, you can work on whatever you want, but I
> was hoping to see another major feature addition for 7.2.  We know we
> badly need auto-vacuum, improved replication, and point-in-time recover.

I don't like auto-vacuum approach in long term, WAL-based BAR is too easy
to do -:) (and you know that there is man who will do it, probably),
bidirectional sync replication is good to work on, but I'm more
interested in storage/transaction management now. And I'm not sure
if I'll have enough time for "another major feature in 7.2" anyway.

> It would be better to put work into one mechanism that would
> reuse all tuples.

This is what we're discussing now -:)
If community will not like UNDO then I'll probably try to implement
dead space collector which will read log files and so on. Easy to
#ifdef it in 7.2 to use in 7.3 (or so) with on-disk FSM. Also, I have
to implement logging for non-btree indices (anyway required for UNDO,
WAL-based BAR, WAL-based space reusing).

Vadim

Tue, 22 May 2001 14:33:38 -0700
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM>
RE: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem