| From: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Zhang Mingli <zmlpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Refactor UnpinBuffer() |
| Date: | 2022-09-29 11:47:51 |
| Message-ID: | CAJ7c6TPMDutnzi+cVaPzDbgeOZz+AFULkGgUO4i1wAAZg4+SWw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Bharath,
> Also, it looks like changing the order of GetPrivateRefCountEntry()
> and ResourceOwnerForgetBuffer() doesn't have any effect as they are
> independent, but do we want to actually do that if there's no specific
> reason?
If we keep the order as it is now the code will become:
```
ref = GetPrivateRefCountEntry(b, false);
Assert(ref != NULL);
ResourceOwnerForgetBuffer(CurrentResourceOwner, b);
Assert(ref->refcount > 0);
ref->refcount--;
if (ref->refcount == 0)
```
I figured it would not hurt to gather all the calls and Asserts
related to `ref` together. This is the only reason why I choose to
rearrange the order of the calls in the patch.
So, no strong opinion in this respect from my side. I'm fine with
keeping the existing order.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2022-09-29 11:57:54 | Re: Generalize ereport_startup_progress infrastructure |
| Previous Message | Daniel Verite | 2022-09-29 11:10:43 | [patch] \g with multiple result sets and \watch with copy queries |