| From: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Subject: | Re: Unlogged rel fake lsn vs GetVictimBuffer() |
| Date: | 2026-03-10 19:46:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAAKRu_Ypx4+a3ycAJm276E0F3UiQfo-XeusOmjOzOajHCLNHZA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 3:31 PM Melanie Plageman
<melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> None of my points above are blockers, so barring any objections I plan
> to push this later today/tomorrow. It hasn't been sitting out long but
> it is pretty trivial and I don't think it has any correctness issues.
Now, I'm thinking that I should allow BufferNeedsWALFlush() to be
called on local buffers. I removed it in v2 because Andres mentioned
it could never happen when called by StrategyRejectBuffer() (because
we don't use strategies on local buffers), but there's no reason
BufferNeedsWALFlush() can't be used more widely in the future.
- Melanie
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2026-03-10 19:56:14 | Re: Potential security risk associated with function call |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2026-03-10 19:43:42 | Re: Interrupts vs signals |