Re: Bug in new buffer freelist code

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bug in new buffer freelist code
Date: 2004-01-07 18:47:54
Message-ID: 20478.1073501274@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> It might also be worthwhile to add another BM_FLAG bit that
>> specifically indicates a buffer is on the freelist, and
>> set/clear/test that at appropriate spots.

> ISTM that BM_FREE should indicate this, or am I misunderstanding you?

No. BM_FREE means refcount == 0. In the old implementation this meant
it was "on the freelist", but in the ARC code there are several
"freelists". I was speaking specifically of the freelist that's used to
hold completely-dead buffers (buffers not containing any valid page).

It might be a good idea to rename BM_FREE to something else, perhaps
BM_UNPINNED, since I can recall being confused about what it meant too.

Also, if Jan likes the idea of adding a flag bit for this purpose, maybe
there should be a flag bit associated with each of the ARC freelists,
so you can tell positively where a "free" buffer is supposed to be.

The dead-buffer freelist may not need a flag bit per se, since the
condition of the buffertag being "clear" should be equivalent.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2004-01-07 18:52:35 Re: OFF TOPIC!! Re: Paypal WAS: PostgreSQL speakers
Previous Message Neil Conway 2004-01-07 18:38:26 Re: Bug in new buffer freelist code