Hi,
On 2023-02-11 14:25:06 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2023-01-20 13:40:55 +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> > v2-0004:
> >
> > 5. Is it worth having two versions of PinLocalBuffer() one to adjust
> > the usage count and one that does not? Couldn't the version that does
> > not adjust the count skip doing pg_atomic_read_u32()?
>
> I think it'd be nicer to just move the read inside the if
> (adjust_usagecount). That way the rest of the function doesn't have to be
> duplicated.
Ah, no, we need it for the return value. No current users of
PinLocalBuffer(adjust_usagecount = false)
need the return value, but I don't think that's necessarily the case.
I'm somewhat inclined to not duplicate it, but if you think it's worth it,
I'll do that.
Greetings,
Andres Freund