From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Stopgap solution for table-size-estimate updatingproblem |
Date: | 2004-11-29 16:34:38 |
Message-ID: | 19138.1101746078@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> writes:
> I think I recall that lseek may have a negative effect on some OS's
> readahead calculations (probably only systems that cannot handle an
> lseek to the next page eighter) ? Do you think we should cache the
> last value to avoid the syscall ?
We really can't, since the point of doing it is to find out whether any
other backends have extended the file since we last looked. Also, IIRC
seqscan startup does a similar lseek() anyhow, so having the planner do
one will make no difference to the readahead or lack of it in a
subsequent seqscan.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2004-11-29 16:34:55 | Re: bug fix request |
Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD | 2004-11-29 16:30:18 | Re: Stopgap solution for table-size-estimate updatingproblem |