| From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Mark Kirkwood" <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, "Gavin Sherry" <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au>, "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, "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 08:14:54 |
| Message-ID: | 1173168895.3760.2054.camel@silverbirch.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 00:54 +0100, Florian G. Pflug wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> But it would break the idea of letting a second seqscan follow in the
> first's hot cache trail, no?
No, but it would make it somewhat harder to achieve without direct
synchronization between scans. It could still work; lets see.
I'm not sure thats an argument against fixing the problem with the
buffer strategy though. We really want both, not just one or the other.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2007-03-06 08:17:13 | Re: PL/Python warnings in CVS HEAD |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-06 07:17:46 | Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant |