On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 01:17:12PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> Fair enough, here is the corrected patch.
Okay for me, so applied. Thanks!
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
> extern void InvalidateSystemCaches(void);
> -extern void InvalidateSystemCachesExtended(bool debug_discard);
>
> Indeed, that looks a bit strange, but is there a strong need in
> removing it, as you are proposing? There is always a risk that this
> could be called by some out-of-core
On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 06:38:46PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> Unless of course we want to change its signature too. I don't think
> this is going to be a good API change.
extern void InvalidateSystemCaches(void);
-extern void InvalidateSystemCachesExtended(bool debug_discard);
Indeed,
Hi Alvaro,
Thanks for your feedback.
> Hmm, this *Extended function looks a bit funny, and I think it's because
> it's part of a backpatched bugfix that didn't want to modify ABI. If
> we're modifying this code, maybe we should get rid of the shim, that is,
> move the boolean argument to
On 2023-Jul-25, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The proposed patch is a small refactoring of inval.{c,h}:
>
> """
> The "public functions" separator comment doesn't reflect reality anymore.
> We could rearrange the order of the functions. However, this would
> complicate
>
Hi,
The proposed patch is a small refactoring of inval.{c,h}:
"""
The "public functions" separator comment doesn't reflect reality anymore.
We could rearrange the order of the functions. However, this would
complicate
back-porting of the patches, thus removing the comment instead.
