Hi,
Sorry for taking long to get back to this...
On 2014-12-21 13:21:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> The idea I'd been wondering about hinged on the same observation that we
> know the buffer is not pinned (by our process) already, but the mechanics
> would be closer to what we do in resource manager
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2014-12-16 18:25:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I just happened to look into bufmgr.c for the first time in awhile, and
>> noticed the privaterefcount-is-no-longer-a-simple-array stuff. It doesn't
>> look too well thought out to me. In particular, PinBuffer_Locked calls
Hi,
On 2014-12-16 18:25:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I just happened to look into bufmgr.c for the first time in awhile, and
> noticed the privaterefcount-is-no-longer-a-simple-array stuff. It doesn't
> look too well thought out to me. In particular, PinBuffer_Locked calls
> GetPrivateRefCountEnt
I just happened to look into bufmgr.c for the first time in awhile, and
noticed the privaterefcount-is-no-longer-a-simple-array stuff. It doesn't
look too well thought out to me. In particular, PinBuffer_Locked calls
GetPrivateRefCountEntry while holding a buffer-header spinlock. That
seems comp
