On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> In that case the old value will rather likely just have been read just
> before, so the price of rereading should be relatively low.
Maybe in terms of I/O, but there's still CPU.
> is a rather valid point. I've split the patch accordingly. The second
> patch is *not* supposed to be applied together with patch 1 but rather
> included for reference.
OK, committed patch 1.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
