Re: Alter/update large tables - VERRRY annoying behaviour! - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Nigel J. Andrews
Subject Re: Alter/update large tables - VERRRY annoying behaviour!
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.21.0204160014030.20382-100000@ponder.fairway2k.co.uk
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Alter/update large tables - VERRRY annoying behaviour!  ("Nigel J. Andrews" <nandrews@investsystems.co.uk>)
Responses Re: Alter/update large tables - VERRRY annoying behaviour!
List pgsql-general
It's sad replying to my own question [of sorts] but...

On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Dmitry Tkach wrote:
>
> > Neil Conway wrote:
> >
> >>  On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:07:20 -0400
> >> "Dmitry Tkach" <dmitry@openratings.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>  First of all, a question for you - is ANY update to a table equivalent (in
> this respect) to a delete+insert?
> >
> >>  Yes, AFAIK -- MVCC requires this.
> >
> > What's MVCC?
>
> Funny, I was about to ask that question. Something about variable size of
> fields in the physical storage?

I've remembered, alsmot: Multi Version ConCurrency?


[plenty deleted from those quoted messages but they you all realised that or
don't care]


--
Nigel J. Andrews
Director

---
Logictree Systems Limited
Computer Consultants


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Nigel J. Andrews"
Date:
Subject: Re: Alter/update large tables - VERRRY annoying behaviour!
Next
From: Phil Glatz
Date:
Subject: speeding up subqueries