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

From: Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath(dot)reddy(at)zohocorp(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why we need to check for local buffers in BufferIsExclusiveLocked and BufferIsDirty?
Date: 2024-12-08 12:53:21
Message-ID: CAN55FZ0TEDthuRD=TEYLbDr69iUsLwdQJB34S0BCyz1zzXTceg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Srinath,

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 at 11:17, Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla
<srinath(dot)reddy(at)zohocorp(dot)com> wrote:
> > ---- On Fri, 06 Dec 2024 16:40:51 +0530 Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote ---
> > LGTM.
>
> sorry i didn't get,what you meant to say is the assert failure which i said is correct and does my patch to this looks good?🤔

Sorry if I was not clear. Yes, I wanted to say what you said is
correct and the patch looks good to me.

--
Regards,
Nazir Bilal Yavuz
Microsoft

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Evgeny 2024-12-08 14:11:42 Re: [PATCH] Support Int64 GUCs
Previous Message Egor Rogov 2024-12-08 12:51:32 Exposing index AM properties at SQL level