| From: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: Checkpointer write combining |
| Date: | 2025-11-19 02:00:40 |
| Message-ID: | 4ECED07F-75F2-46D4-8F71-0B0DFA350777@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Nov 19, 2025, at 02:49, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I no longer remember why I made that patch WIP, so I've removed that
> designation.
I just reviewed 0007. It removes the second parameter "bool skip_recently_used” from SyncOneBuffer. The function is static and is only called in one place with skip_recently_used=true, thus removing the parameter seems reasonable, and without considering pinned buffer, the function is simplified a little bit.
I only got a tiny comment:
```
+ * We can make these check without taking the buffer content lock so
```
As you changed “this” to “these”, “check” should be changed to “checks” accordingly.
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chao Li | 2025-11-19 02:09:42 | Re: Checkpointer write combining |
| Previous Message | Chao Li | 2025-11-19 01:45:59 | Re: Eagerly evict bulkwrite strategy ring |