From: | wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) |
---|---|
To: | hannu(at)trust(dot)ee (Hannu Krosing) |
Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6 |
Date: | 1999-06-06 18:47:03 |
Message-ID: | m10qhwl-0003kGC@orion.SAPserv.Hamburg.dsh.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > 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?
>
> >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.
>
> It is not a genuine bug (as it only slows thong down instead of
> getting wrong results), but still a misfeature.
>
> It is most likely an ancient quickfix for some execution path that
> failed to set the dirty mark when it should have.
Can't believe that this is true - uhhhhhh!
If it is, then it's surely a severe BUG!
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#========================================= wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 1999-06-06 18:58:22 | Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6 |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 1999-06-06 18:44:49 | Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6 |