Re: Why we need to check for local buffers in BufferIsExclusiveLocked and BufferIsDirty?

as suggested did the changes and attached the patch for the same.

Regards,
Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla,
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 3:20 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath(dot)reddy(at)zohocorp(dot)com> writes:
> >> ---- On Thu, 05 Dec 2024 21:11:42 +0530 Andres Freund <mailto:
> andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote ---
> >> The gain by not dealing with local buffers in these functions is fairly
> small
> >> too, so there's not really any reason for a change like yours.
>
> > hmm got it,if thats the case, for local buffers lockbuffer will skip
> acquiring content lock, so assert will fail in BufferIsDirty.
>
> I think you are right about that, but
>
> (1) it seems to be general style to check BufferIsPinned before
> checking the content lock, and you've made that out-of-order.
> This is easily fixed by moving the Assert(BufferIsPinned(buffer))
> to earlier in the function.
>
> (2) I don't think we should touch this but not worry about
> BufferIsExclusiveLocked: it's unlikely to behave well on local
> buffers either, since we don't initialize content locks for them.
> We could either Assert that that's not applied to local buffers,
> or act as though their lock is always held. Given Andres' argument
> probably the latter is better.
>
> regards, tom lane
>