Re: [HACKERS] PinBuffer() no longer makes use of strategy
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] PinBuffer() no longer makes use of strategy |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20170204003924.pjj5xpkkyo5lhosk@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | [HACKERS] PinBuffer() no longer makes use of strategy (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] PinBuffer() no longer makes use of strategy
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 2017-02-03 18:32:03 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote: > Commit 48354581a49c30f5757c203415aa8412d85b0f70 (Allow Pin/UnpinBuffer to > operate in a lockfree manner) removed the code in PinBuffer that > conditionally incremented usage_count when a ring buffer was in use. Was > that intentional? ISTM the old behavior should have been retained. Hm. You mean the else in if (strategy == NULL) { if (buf->usage_count < BM_MAX_USAGE_COUNT) buf->usage_count++; } else { if (buf->usage_count == 0) buf->usage_count = 1; } (Not sure what you exactly mean with "conditionally increment")? I don't really recall - I suspect it wasn't (otherwise we'd have had to update the function's comment and remove the arguument). Alexander? I suspect I'd skipped implementing it in my prototype and when finishing the patch Alexander didn't see that part. I have a hard time believing it makes any sort of meaningful difference though - you see one? Greetings, Andres Freund
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: