> 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.
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 |