Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6
Date: 1999-06-05 18:25:20
Message-ID: 3805.928607120@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> writes:
> While I don't doubt your analysis is correct for the case you've
> uncovered, it doesn't explain why surrounding a bunch of selects
> with a begin/end block greatly descreases disk activity for tables
> that don't change.

Hmm, I'm not sure why that should be, either. Anyone?

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 1999-06-05 18:33:03 Re: [HACKERS] livetime of a variable defined in a c-procedure (fwd)
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1999-06-05 18:14:58 Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6