Re: Seq scans status update - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Seq scans status update
Date
Msg-id 11912.1180390573@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Seq scans status update  (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: Seq scans status update  (Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>)
Re: Seq scans status update  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-patches
Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Is there a reason UnpinBuffer has to be the one to increment the usage count
> anyways? Why can't ReadBuffer handle incrementing the count and just trust
> that it won't be decremented until the buffer is unpinned anyways?

That's a good question.  I think the idea was that if we hold a buffer
pinned for awhile (long enough that the bgwriter's clock sweep passes
over it one or more times), we want the usage count decrementing to
start when we release the pin, not when we acquire it.  But maybe that
could be fixed if the clock sweep doesn't touch the usage_count of a
pinned buffer.  Which in fact it may not do already --- didn't look.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Seq scans status update
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: CREATE TABLE LIKE INCLUDING INDEXES support