Re: Should buffer of initialization fork have a BM_PERMANENT flag

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Wang Hao <whberet(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should buffer of initialization fork have a BM_PERMANENT flag
Date: 2017-03-14 16:13:28
Message-ID: CA+Tgmobr9tfAsu2wS6L88suu0g875349PyNKtR2L0pMAfDrExg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I agree with that, but I propose the attached version instead. It
>> seems cleaner to have the entire test for setting BM_PERMANENT in one
>> place rather than splitting it up as you did.
>
> Fine for me. You may want to update the comment of BM_PERMANENT in
> buf_internals.h as Artur has mentioned upthread. For example by just
> adding "and init forks".

OK, done, and back-patched all the way.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-03-14 16:19:29 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add test case for two phase commit. Also by Masahiko Sawada.
Previous Message Petr Jelinek 2017-03-14 16:12:24 Re: Logical replication existing data copy