From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ARC buffer strategy committed |
Date: | 2003-11-13 15:33:44 |
Message-ID: | 26422.1068737624@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> Yeah, adding a buffer multiple times to the list of unused buffers
> ensures that it later on gets used for multiple contents simultaneously.
Hm. Looking at the patch last night, I was wondering why you had
removed all the guard logic from BufTableInsert and BufTableDelete.
Was that indeed a bad idea? In particular, the removal of this bit
from BufTableDelete
/*
* Clear the buffer's tag. This doesn't matter for the hash table,
* since the buffer is already removed from it, but it ensures that
* sequential searches through the buffer table won't think the buffer
* is still valid for its old page.
*/
buf->tag.rnode.relNode = InvalidOid;
buf->tag.rnode.tblNode = InvalidOid;
worries me quite a lot, because I *know* that was necessary before.
Have you really changed the search algorithms to the point where it's not?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2003-11-13 15:36:50 | Re: New approach to ye olde cross-datatype indexing problem |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-11-13 15:11:10 | Re: rpm support for 7.4 and beyond |