RE: Re: Buffer access rules, and a probable bug - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Mikheev, Vadim
Subject RE: Re: Buffer access rules, and a probable bug
Date
Msg-id 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E320166AC@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Buffer access rules, and a probable bug  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> What I'm wondering is if you had any other intended use for "mark for
> cleanup" than VACUUM.  The cheapest implementation would allow only
> one process to be waiting for cleanup on a given buffer, which is OK
> for VACUUM because we'll only allow one VACUUM at a time on a relation
> anyway.  But if you had some other uses in mind, maybe the code needs
> to support multiple waiters.

I was going to use it for UNDO but it seems that UNDO w/o OSMGR is not
popular and OSMGR will require different approaches anyway, so -
do whatever you want.

Vadim


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Checking query results against selectivity estimate
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: FE/BE protocol oddity