RE: Possible performance improvement: buffer replacemen t policy

From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: RE: Possible performance improvement: buffer replacemen t policy
Date: 2001-01-19 19:13:54
Message-ID: 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A234D32A0@sectorbase1.sectorbase.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> So, we probably should put new free dirty buffer just before first
> undirty one in LRU.

Ops - new free UNdirty buffer before first DIRTY one in LRU,
sorry -:)

Vadim

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Larry Rosenman 2001-01-19 19:24:10 Re: Re: [PATCHES] s_lock.h cleanup
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-01-19 18:49:26 Re: Re: [PATCHES] s_lock.h cleanup