Re: Seq scans status update

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Seq scans status update
Date: 2007-05-30 20:43:15
Message-ID: 1180557795.26915.157.camel@dogma.v10.wvs
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 15:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> In
> the sync-scan case the idea seems pretty bogus anyway, because the
> actual working set will be N backends' rings not just one.

I don't follow. Ideally, in the sync-scan case, the sets of buffers in
the ring of different scans on the same relation will overlap
completely, right?

We might not be at the ideal, but the sets of buffers in the rings
shouldn't be disjoint, should they?

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-05-30 21:45:51 Re: Seq scans status update
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2007-05-30 19:59:17 Re: OS X startup script patch