| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Jacob Brazeal <jacob(dot)brazeal(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Old BufferDesc refcount in PrintBufferDescs and PrintPinnedBufs |
| Date: | 2025-01-19 18:47:34 |
| Message-ID: | 2752650.1737312454@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2025-01-19 09:37:54 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Removal sounds good to me. Any objections from anybody?
>> Andres, perhaps you have some experience using that and would prefer
>> keep them and make them work?
> I think they're pretty useless, tbh. There's too many buffers that just
> printing them out is helpful - pg_buffercache is going to be a better
> bet. When debugging issues where pg_buffercache isn't an option (e.g. because
> it's a hang that doesn't allow running pg_buffercache), using
> DebugPrintBufferRefcount() is much more targeted.
Sounds like we're in agreement. I'll push Jacob's second patch.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2025-01-19 19:00:05 | Re: Issue with markers in isolation tester? Or not? |
| Previous Message | Michail Nikolaev | 2025-01-19 18:26:58 | Re: Issue with markers in isolation tester? Or not? |