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

From Vadim Mikheev
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6
Date
Msg-id 375A68D0.A8DD3AC9@krs.ru
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
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?

pg_log fsync for read-only xactions...
And more of that, commit fsyncs ALL dirty buffers
in pool, even dirtied not by xaction being committed!

Vadim


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Vadim Mikheev
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6
Next
From: Vadim Mikheev
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6