Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant
Date
Msg-id 1173168895.3760.2054.camel@silverbirch.site
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant  ("Florian G. Pflug" <fgp@phlo.org>)
List 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




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Neil Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: PL/Python warnings in CVS HEAD
Next
From: "sharath kumar"
Date:
Subject: user-defined tree methods in GIST