Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there a TODO here?
You needn't add one: I hope to tackle this during the 7.5 dev cycle.
-Neil
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
Is there a TODO here?
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In the BufferDesc struct, there seem to be two ways to mark a buffer
> > page as dirty: setting the BM_DIRTY bit mask in the 'flags' fie
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the BufferDesc struct, there seem to be two ways to mark a buffer
> page as dirty: setting the BM_DIRTY bit mask in the 'flags' field of the
> struct, and setting the 'cntxDirty' field to true. What is the
> difference between these two indications of a
Neil Conway wrote:
In the BufferDesc struct, there seem to be two ways to mark a buffer
page as dirty: setting the BM_DIRTY bit mask in the 'flags' field of the
struct, and setting the 'cntxDirty' field to true. What is the
difference between these two indications of a page's dirtiness?
I don't see
In the BufferDesc struct, there seem to be two ways to mark a buffer
page as dirty: setting the BM_DIRTY bit mask in the 'flags' field of the
struct, and setting the 'cntxDirty' field to true. What is the
difference between these two indications of a page's dirtiness?
Or, more to the point, is the
