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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant
Date
Msg-id 26239.1173153520@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant  ("Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan@greenplum.com>)
Responses Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant  ("Luke Lonergan" <llonergan@greenplum.com>)
Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant  (Sherry Moore <sherry.moore@Sun.COM>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan@greenplum.com> writes:
> Good info - it's the same in Solaris, the routine is uiomove (Sherry
> wrote it).

Cool.  Maybe Sherry can comment on the question whether it's possible
for a large-scale-memcpy to not take a hit on filling a cache line
that wasn't previously in cache?

I looked a bit at the Linux code that's being used here, but it's all
x86_64 assembler which is something I've never studied :-(.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: Log levels for checkpoint/bgwriter monitoring
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal: custom variables management