From: | pinker <pinker(at)onet(dot)eu> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Block duplications in a shared buffers |
Date: | 2017-11-07 17:16:27 |
Message-ID: | 1510074987026-0.post@n3.nabble.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane-2 wrote
> Postgres would be completely broken if that were true, because
> modifications made to one copy would fail to propagate to other copies.
> I don't know where your data came from, but it can't be an accurate
> representation of the instantaneous state of the buffer cache.
>
> ... actually, after looking at your query, I wonder whether the issue
> is that you're failing to include database and tablespace in the
> grouping key. relfilenode isn't guaranteed unique across directories.
> The fork number can matter, too.
thank you I'll add those columns to my query
--
Sent from: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-general-f1843780.html
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | pinker | 2017-11-07 17:24:15 | Re: Block duplications in a shared buffers |
Previous Message | Rob Sargent | 2017-11-07 16:22:51 | Re: idle in transaction, why |