Re: Extension Enhancement: Buffer Invalidation in pg_buffercache

From: Cédric Villemain <cedric(dot)villemain+pgsql(at)abcsql(dot)com>
To: Palak Chaturvedi <chaturvedipalak1911(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jim Nasby <jim(dot)nasby(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Extension Enhancement: Buffer Invalidation in pg_buffercache
Date: 2024-01-14 13:36:26
Message-ID: a2c3312f-0866-443f-a799-dd76ebf9c7f5@abcsql.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Palak,

there is currently even more interest in your patch as it should help
building tests for on-going development around cache/read
management/effects.

Do you expect to be able to follow-up in the coming future ?

Thank you,
Cédric

On 04/01/2024 00:15, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 1/3/24 10:25 AM, Cédric Villemain wrote:
>> Hi Palak,
>>
>> I did a quick review of the patch:
>>
>> +CREATE FUNCTION pg_buffercache_invalidate(IN int, IN bool default true)
>> +RETURNS bool
>> +AS 'MODULE_PATHNAME', 'pg_buffercache_invalidate'
>> +LANGUAGE C PARALLEL SAFE;
>>
>> --> Not enforced anywhere, but you can also add a comment to the
>> function, for end users...
>
> The arguments should also have names...
>
>>
>> +    force = PG_GETARG_BOOL(1);
>>
>> I think you also need to test PG_ARGISNULL with force parameter.
> Actually, that's true for the first argument as well. Or, just mark the
> function as STRICT.
>
> --
> Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Austin TX
>

--
---
Cédric Villemain +33 (0)6 20 30 22 52
https://Data-Bene.io
PostgreSQL Expertise, Support, Training, R&D

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Naylor 2024-01-14 13:42:49 Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum
Previous Message Andrei Lepikhov 2024-01-14 12:14:13 Re: POC: GROUP BY optimization