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

From: Srinath Reddy <srinath2133(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why we need to check for local buffers in BufferIsExclusiveLocked and BufferIsDirty?
Date: 2025-01-27 14:56:48
Message-ID: CAFC+b6pCAsRPA15REBSnUeOf=rB4CN0VGczKY0_ii4a2N9XENQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 10:24 PM Srinath Reddy <srinath2133(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

>
> as there was repeated code between BufferIsExclusiveLocked and
> BufferIsDirty to check if buffer is pinned and its locked exclusively,i
> thought it would be nice to move that repeated code into
> BufferIsExclusiveLocked and as we need bufHdr in BufferIsDirty which is
> assigned in BufferIsExclusiveLocked,so I had to change the signature of
> BufferIsExclusiveLocked by adding (BufferDesc **bufHdr).
>

Hi Tom,
if this is not the answer you are expecting ,please let me know.I am open
for suggestions.

Regards,

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bertrand Drouvot 2025-01-27 15:07:01 Re: Reorder shutdown sequence, to flush pgstats later
Previous Message Tom Lane 2025-01-27 14:47:22 Re: Back patch of Remove durable_rename_excl()