Re: Seq scans status update
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Seq scans status update |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 11912.1180390573@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Seq scans status update (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Seq scans status update
Re: Seq scans status update |
Список | pgsql-patches |
Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> 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
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: