Re: Bug in new buffer freelist code

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bug in new buffer freelist code
Date: 2004-01-07 19:22:50
Message-ID: 878ykjpnqt.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> It might be a good idea to rename BM_FREE to something else, perhaps
> BM_UNPINNED, since I can recall being confused about what it meant
> too.

If all it indicates is refcount == 0, ISTM we can just get rid of it
altogether, and just check the shared refcount directly.

> Also, if Jan likes the idea of adding a flag bit for this purpose,
> maybe there should be a flag bit associated with each of the ARC
> freelists, so you can tell positively where a "free" buffer is
> supposed to be.

Seems like a good idea to me...

-Neil

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kurt Roeckx 2004-01-07 19:23:40 Re: Brokenness in parsing of pg_hba.conf
Previous Message Andreas Pflug 2004-01-07 19:17:15 Re: Dumb question: How do I determine programmatically