Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Yeah. I think that BM_UNLOGGED might be a poor choice for the flag name,
>> just because it overstates what the bufmgr needs to assume.
> I was actually thinking of adding BM_UNLOGGED even before this
> discussion, because that would allow unlogged buffers to be excluded
> from non-shutdown checkpoints. We could add two flags with different
> semantics that take on, under present rules, the same value, but I'd
> be disinclined to burn the extra bit without a concrete need.
bufmgr is currently using eight bits out of a 16-bit flag field, and
IIRC at least five of those have been there since the beginning. So our
accretion rate is something like one bit every four years. I think not
being willing to use two bits to describe two unrelated behaviors is
penny-wise and pound-foolish --- bufmgr is already complicated enough,
let's not add useless barriers to readability.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
