| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Mark Kirkwood" <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Gavin Sherry" <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au>, "PGSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Doug Rady" <drady(at)greenplum(dot)com>, "Sherry Moore" <sherry(dot)moore(at)sun(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant |
| Date: | 2007-03-06 03:58:40 |
| Message-ID: | 26239.1173153520@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> writes:
> Good info - it's the same in Solaris, the routine is uiomove (Sherry
> wrote it).
Cool. Maybe Sherry can comment on the question whether it's possible
for a large-scale-memcpy to not take a hit on filling a cache line
that wasn't previously in cache?
I looked a bit at the Linux code that's being used here, but it's all
x86_64 assembler which is something I've never studied :-(.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2007-03-06 04:02:27 | Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2007-03-06 03:38:59 | Re: Log levels for checkpoint/bgwriter monitoring |