> 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

Responses

• Re: Re: Buffer access rules, and a probable bug at 2001-07-06 01:22:38 from Hiroshi Inoue

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Peter Eisentraut	Date: 2001-07-05 19:49:18
	Subject: FE/BE protocol oddity
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2001-07-05 18:36:21
	Subject: Re: Checking query results against selectivity estimate