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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6
Date
Msg-id 3805.928607120@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6  (Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
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?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] livetime of a variable defined in a c-procedure (fwd)