Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

RE: Re: Buffer access rules, and a probable bug

From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: RE: Re: Buffer access rules, and a probable bug
Date: 2001-07-05 19:46:44
Message-ID: 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E320166AC@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: 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

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group