On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Andres Freund <and...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
