From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: PinBuffer() no longer makes use of strategy |
Date: | 2017-02-04 00:39:24 |
Message-ID: | 20170204003924.pjj5xpkkyo5lhosk@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | 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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2017-02-04 00:42:18 | Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless) |
Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2017-02-04 00:32:03 | PinBuffer() no longer makes use of strategy |