Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there a reason UnpinBuffer has to be the one to increment the usage count
> anyways? Why can't ReadBuffer handle incrementing the count and just trust
> that it won't be decremented until the buffer is unpinned anyways?

That's a good question.  I think the idea was that if we hold a buffer
pinned for awhile (long enough that the bgwriter's clock sweep passes
over it one or more times), we want the usage count decrementing to
start when we release the pin, not when we acquire it.  But maybe that
could be fixed if the clock sweep doesn't touch the usage_count of a
pinned buffer.  Which in fact it may not do already --- didn't look.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at


Reply via email to