Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Hannu Krosing
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6
Date
Msg-id 37598DD4.62C56219@trust.ee
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6
Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6
Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com> writes:
> > While I don't doubt your analysis is correct for the case you've
> > uncovered, it doesn't explain why surrounding a bunch of selects
> > with a begin/end block greatly descreases disk activity for tables
> > that don't change.
> 
> Hmm, I'm not sure why that should be, either.  Anyone?

>From a recent discussion I remember that every block that is read 
in is marked as dirty, regardless of weather it is modified or not.

It is not a genuine bug (as it only slows thong down instead of 
getting wrong results), but still a misfeature.

It is most likely an ancient quickfix for some execution path that 
failed to set the dirty mark when it should have.

---------------------
Hannu


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Re: contrib code for 6.5
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6