At 2014-08-20 11:07:44 +0300, hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
>
> I don't think the new GetBufferWithoutRelcache function is in line
> with the existing ReadBuffer API. I think it would be better to add a
> new ReadBufferMode - RBM_CACHE_ONLY? - that only returns the buffer if
> it's already in cach
On 07/07/2014 11:46 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
At 2014-07-07 14:02:15 +0530, amit.khande...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Other than some minor comments as mentioned below, I don't have any
more issues, it looks all good.
Thank you. (Updated patch attached.)
I don't think the new GetBufferWitho
At 2014-07-07 14:02:15 +0530, amit.khande...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
>
> Other than some minor comments as mentioned below, I don't have any
> more issues, it looks all good.
Thank you. (Updated patch attached.)
-- Abhijit
diff --git a/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtxlog.c b/src/backend/access/nbtr
On 4 July 2014 19:11, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> Updated patch attached, thanks.
>
> Amit: what's your conclusion from the review?
>
Other than some minor comments as mentioned below, I don't have any more
issues, it looks all good.
XLogLockBlockRangeForCleanup() function header comments has th
Updated patch attached, thanks.
Amit: what's your conclusion from the review?
-- Abhijit
diff --git a/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtxlog.c b/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtxlog.c
index 5f9fc49..dc90c02 100644
--- a/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtxlog.c
+++ b/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtxlog.c
@@ -501
On 3 July 2014 16:59, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> I think we should say this though
>
> LockBufHdr(buf);
> valid = ((buf->flags & BM_VALID) != 0);
> if (valid)
> PinBuffer_Locked(buf);
> else
> UnlockBufHdr(buf);
>
> since otherwise we would access the buffer flags without the spinlock
> and w
On 3 July 2014 06:45, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> In GetBufferWithoutRelcache(), I was wondering, rather than calling
> PinBuffer(), if we do this :
> LockBufHdr(buf);
> PinBuffer_Locked(buf);
> valid = ((buf->flags & BM_VALID) != 0);
> then we can avoid having the new buffer access strategy BAS_DISC
FYI, I've attached a patch that does what you suggested. I haven't done
anything else (i.e. testing) with it yet.
-- Abhijit
diff --git a/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtxlog.c b/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtxlog.c
index 5f9fc49..dc90c02 100644
--- a/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtxlog.c
+++ b/src/back
At 2014-07-03 11:15:53 +0530, amit.khande...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
>
> In GetBufferWithoutRelcache(), I was wondering, rather than calling
> PinBuffer(), if we do this :
> LockBufHdr(buf);
> PinBuffer_Locked(buf);
> valid = ((buf->flags & BM_VALID) != 0);
> then we can avoid having the new buffer
On 13 June 2014 14:10, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> nbtxlog.c:btree_xlog_vacuum() contains the following comment:
>
> * XXX we don't actually need to read the block, we just need to
> * confirm it is unpinned. If we had a special call into the
> * buffer manager we could optimise thi
nbtxlog.c:btree_xlog_vacuum() contains the following comment:
* XXX we don't actually need to read the block, we just need to
* confirm it is unpinned. If we had a special call into the
* buffer manager we could optimise this so that if the block is
* not in shared_buffers we c
11 matches
Mail list logo
