Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: [HACKERS] Should buffer of initialization fork have aBM_PERMANENT flag - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Should buffer of initialization fork have aBM_PERMANENT flag
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmobr9tfAsu2wS6L88suu0g875349PyNKtR2L0pMAfDrExg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Should buffer of initialization fork have aBM_PERMANENT flag  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Should buffer of initialization fork have aBM_PERMANENT flag  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I agree with that, but I propose the attached version instead.  It
>> seems cleaner to have the entire test for setting BM_PERMANENT in one
>> place rather than splitting it up as you did.
>
> Fine for me. You may want to update the comment of BM_PERMANENT in
> buf_internals.h as Artur has mentioned upthread. For example by just
> adding "and init forks".

OK, done, and back-patched all the way.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Petr Jelinek
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Logical replication existing data copy
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add test case for two phasecommit. Also by Masahiko Sawada.