From: | bruc(at)stone(dot)congenomics(dot)com (Robert E(dot) Bruccoleri) |
---|---|
To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane) |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Various silliness in heap_getnext and related routines |
Date: | 2001-06-09 16:28:53 |
Message-ID: | 200106091628.MAA78032@stone.congenomics.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Tom,
>
>
> Robert Bruccoleri (bruc(at)stone(dot)congen(dot)com) wrote:
> > It's not clear to me why the spinlock needs be grabbed at the
> > beginning of RelationGetBufferWithBuffer,
>
> I believe you are right: the spinlock doesn't need to be grabbed,
> because if a valid buffer is passed in, it must already be pinned
> (since the returned buffer is expected to be pinned). Hence the check
> for same-buffer could be done without first grabbing the spinlock.
For my immediate problem, would removing the spinlock acquisition
be OK?
Thanks for looking into this problem.
Sincerely,
Bob
+----------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Robert E. Bruccoleri, Ph.D. | Phone: 609 737 6383 |
| President, Congenomics, Inc. | Fax: 609 737 7528 |
| 114 W Franklin Ave, Suite K1,4,5 | email: bruc(at)acm(dot)org |
| P.O. Box 314 | URL: http://www.congen.com/~bruc |
| Pennington, NJ 08534 | |
+----------------------------------+------------------------------------+
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-06-09 16:44:23 | Re: grant and SQL92 |
Previous Message | Philip Crotwell | 2001-06-09 14:13:26 | Re: unlink large objects |