How Postgres Makes Transactions Atomic (2017)
brandur.org
brandur.org
Also, this remains as fantastic an article on PostgreSQL's MVCC nature as it was previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15027870
Edit: whoops, I thought you were replying to the request to add 2017 to the title.
If you've possibly already read it and are wondering if it's a repeat, if you have knowledge that the topic has had changes since then which might make it less accurate, and any number of other things.
In the end, it's more information, if people want to assume something negative about it, I feel that's on them (as long as the information shown is accurate).
I don't know that it's particularly useful most of the time, it's usually just unnecessary. An example where it actually should have been removed that I remember was this article on The Guardian a while back: "Suburb in the sky: how Jakartans built an entire village on top of a mall" [2]. There's nothing in the article at all about how they built it. It's just a trendy headline style for some reason, and gets used even in cases where it doesn't apply, like that one.
[1]: https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/17/20870347/sampling-streami...
[2]: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/aug/05/suburb-in-the...
> I won’t go into subcommits in any detail, but it’s worth nothing that because TransactionIdCommitTree cannot be guaranteed to be atomic
From the context I think the word "nothing" should be "noting", as in, "It's worth noting".
I guess it all depends on what data we are touching, but let imagine I want to update all the rows for a table with 1 billions entries, wouldn't the snapshot be giantic ?
Or maybe I misunderstood what is a snapshot.