From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Seq scans status update |
Date: | 2007-05-29 15:50:26 |
Message-ID: | 20070529155026.GD4667@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> > Is there a reason UnpinBuffer has to be the one to increment the usage count
> > anyways? Why can't ReadBuffer handle incrementing the count and just trust
> > that it won't be decremented until the buffer is unpinned anyways?
>
> That's a good question. I think the idea was that if we hold a buffer
> pinned for awhile (long enough that the bgwriter's clock sweep passes
> over it one or more times), we want the usage count decrementing to
> start when we release the pin, not when we acquire it. But maybe that
> could be fixed if the clock sweep doesn't touch the usage_count of a
> pinned buffer. Which in fact it may not do already --- didn't look.
It does -- in BgBufferSync the "all" scan calls SyncOneBuffer with
skip_pinned=false. The "lru" scan does skip pinned buffers.
--
Alvaro Herrera Developer, http://www.PostgreSQL.org/
"World domination is proceeding according to plan" (Andrew Morton)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-05-29 16:41:09 | Re: Concurrent psql patch |
Previous Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2007-05-29 13:55:27 | Re: [pgsql-patches] Ctid chain following enhancement |