Re: ARC buffer strategy committed

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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