MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMLfE0MAVH5YORs0OKmD=fFWH9EtuNsnhViti=+hkp3Kbz-Gfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <C1E6A3DC-C13C-4051-AE27-10E83E42AA8E@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <C1E6A3DC-C13C-4051-AE27-10E83E42AA8E@gmail.com>
From: Ellen Allhatatlan <ellenallhatatlan@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 18:31:05 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMLfE0PbYk4WcXDydLJBaavtiimU=aMUKkyEHdC6izKKkHgP5g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: MVCC and all that...
To: Rob Sargent <robjsargent@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAMLfE0PbYk4WcXDydLJBaavtiimU%3DaMUKkyEHdC6izKKkHgP5g%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

> > In part 1. Differences in MVCC implementation - he's saying that "It=E2=
=80=99s
> > not that the PostgreSQL implementation of MVCC is bad=E2=80=89=E2=80=94=
=E2=80=89it=E2=80=99s just
> > fundamentally different"

> It is written by someone @firebirdsql.org so one assumes a few grains of =
salt necessary.


I know - but the guy does stress that he's not knocking PostgreSQL,
just that there are differences.

However, it *_was_* my understanding that MVCC was implemented
similarly in PostgreSQL and Firebird - PG has VACUUM and FB has SWEEP.
Why would FB need SWEEP if it didn't have to clear up after
transactions - a problem that apparently doesn't affect Oracle/MySQL?

Oracle and MySQL (InnoDB) implement a different model (as does
Orioledb IIUC) where there's are UNDO/REDO logs.

So, my question is: Is FB's MVCC implementation fundamentally
different from that of PG or have I mixed things up?

Thanks for your input.

--=20

El!