Re: Seq scans status update - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: Seq scans status update
Date
Msg-id 1180557795.26915.157.camel@dogma.v10.wvs
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Seq scans status update  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Seq scans status update  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 15:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> In
> the sync-scan case the idea seems pretty bogus anyway, because the
> actual working set will be N backends' rings not just one.

I don't follow. Ideally, in the sync-scan case, the sets of buffers in
the ring of different scans on the same relation will overlap
completely, right?

We might not be at the ideal, but the sets of buffers in the rings
shouldn't be disjoint, should they?

Regards,
    Jeff Davis


pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: OS X startup script patch
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Seq scans status update