Andres Freund wrote:
> Now a) and b) are recent oversights of mine. I'd apparently not realized
> that there's detailed docs on this in buffer/README. But c) is pretty
> old - essentially 5d50873 from 2005.
>
> I wonder if it's worthwhile to go into that level of detail - seems
> kinda likely to get out of date, as evidenced by it being outdated for
> ~10 years.
I think it makes sense to keep a high-level overview in the README; in
particular the description of how users of this API would use it should
be there. But the implementation details should live in comments inside
the file. I don't think the details of the buffer replacement algorithm
should be in the README.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
