Fwd: 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: Fwd: Why we need to check for local buffers in BufferIsExclusiveLocked and BufferIsDirty?
Date: 2025-01-29 01:41:49
Message-ID: CAFC+b6rKb=HFGoSi0es11JBRdpAhYhf=9C0roihQa79EvLNhfg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 9:49 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Srinath Reddy <srinath2133(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > as suggested did the changes and attached the patch for the same.
>
> Uh ... what in the world is the point of changing
> BufferIsExclusiveLocked's signature?
>
>
as suggested did not change the BufferIsExclusiveLocked's signature and
here's the patch for the same.

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

Attachment Content-Type Size
v2-0001-Handle-local-buffer-cases-properly.patch application/x-patch 2.0 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Smith 2025-01-29 02:19:38 Re: Improve error handling for invalid slots and ensure a same 'inactive_since' time for inactive slots
Previous Message Tom Lane 2025-01-29 01:20:56 preptlist.c can insert unprocessed expression trees