as suggested did the changes and attached the patch for the same. Regards, Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla, EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 3:20 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath.re...@zohocorp.com> writes: > >> ---- On Thu, 05 Dec 2024 21:11:42 +0530 Andres Freund <mailto: > and...@anarazel.de> wrote --- > >> The gain by not dealing with local buffers in these functions is fairly > small > >> too, so there's not really any reason for a change like yours. > > > hmm got it,if thats the case, for local buffers lockbuffer will skip > acquiring content lock, so assert will fail in BufferIsDirty. > > I think you are right about that, but > > (1) it seems to be general style to check BufferIsPinned before > checking the content lock, and you've made that out-of-order. > This is easily fixed by moving the Assert(BufferIsPinned(buffer)) > to earlier in the function. > > (2) I don't think we should touch this but not worry about > BufferIsExclusiveLocked: it's unlikely to behave well on local > buffers either, since we don't initialize content locks for them. > We could either Assert that that's not applied to local buffers, > or act as though their lock is always held. Given Andres' argument > probably the latter is better. > > regards, tom lane >
0001-Handle-local-buffer-cases-properly.patch
Description: Binary data
