Re: Add pg_buffercache_mark_dirty[_all] functions to the pg_buffercache

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Aidar Imamov <a(dot)imamov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Joseph Koshakow <koshy44(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Add pg_buffercache_mark_dirty[_all] functions to the pg_buffercache
Date: 2025-11-28 00:32:01
Message-ID: aSjtgUyUzVc5kyTt@paquier.xyz
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 10:59:47AM +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> I agree with you, the patches make more sense this way.
>
> The patches are split into two in v10. There are no changes from v9,
> except that one extra blank line was removed [1].

Note that there were a couple of things incorrect in the docs. I have
done a sweep to improve the wording in the comments and the docs
themselves, then applied the result.

Testing the valid case for the "_all" function flavor could be costly
for installcheck so I am feeling a bit reserved on its cost. We are
doing it for the evict case as well, so I have kept it at the end to
keep the coverage. If it proves to be an issue or if there is a
concern with this part, I would be OK to remove it.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Smith 2025-11-28 00:35:59 Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication
Previous Message David Rowley 2025-11-27 23:42:14 Re: Support tid range scan in parallel?