| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)trust(dot)ee> |
| Cc: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6 |
| Date: | 1999-06-05 20:58:23 |
| Message-ID: | 5529.928616303@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)trust(dot)ee> writes:
>> Hmm, I'm not sure why that should be, either. Anyone?
> From a recent discussion I remember that every block that is read
> in is marked as dirty, regardless of weather it is modified or not.
No, that was me claiming that, on the basis of a profile I had taken
that showed an unreasonably large number of writes --- but the case
I was profiling was a selective UPDATE on a table that had just
been loaded. When I repeated the test, the number of writes decreased
to the right ballpark.
I am not sure what effect Don is seeing, but I don't think it's quite
as dumb a mistake as that...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-06-06 00:40:50 | Bizarre coding in _bt_binsrch |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 1999-06-05 20:51:32 | Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6 |