From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "P(dot)J(dot) \"Josh\" Rovero" <rovero(at)sonalysts(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: TOAST performance (was Re: [GENERAL] Delete Performance) |
Date: | 2001-11-17 02:07:54 |
Message-ID: | 18456.1005962874@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Is it because we take a snapshot of the page before we write it in case
> we only write part of the page?
AFAIR, the partial-page-write problem is the entire reason for doing it.
If we could be certain that writes to datafile pages were atomic, we'd
not need this.
Of course we can't be certain of that. But I'm wondering if there isn't
a cheaper solution.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-11-17 02:11:24 | Re: TOAST performance (was Re: [GENERAL] Delete Performance) |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-11-17 02:01:51 | Re: TOAST performance (was Re: [GENERAL] Delete Performance) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-11-17 02:11:24 | Re: TOAST performance (was Re: [GENERAL] Delete Performance) |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-11-17 02:01:51 | Re: TOAST performance (was Re: [GENERAL] Delete Performance) |