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

From Vadim Mikheev
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6
Date
Msg-id 375A6906.3FBD394F@krs.ru
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hannu Krosing wrote:
> 
> 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.

No! 

Vadim


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL History(Parody)
Next
From: Vadim Mikheev
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6