Re: Why we need to check for local buffers in BufferIsExclusiveLocked and BufferIsDirty?
| От | Srinath Reddy |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Why we need to check for local buffers in BufferIsExclusiveLocked and BufferIsDirty? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAFC+b6pD5KmdCcc+danACNuo7DxPC6yoyaqD3YBnPBSXFzfQNg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Why we need to check for local buffers in BufferIsExclusiveLocked and BufferIsDirty? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Why we need to check for local buffers in BufferIsExclusiveLocked and BufferIsDirty?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 9:49 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Srinath Reddy <srinath2133@gmail.com> writes:
> as suggested did the changes and attached the patch for the same.
Uh ... what in the world is the point of changing
BufferIsExclusiveLocked's signature?
regards, tom lane
as there was repeated code between BufferIsExclusiveLocked and BufferIsDirty to check if buffer is pinned and its locked exclusively,i thought it would be nice to move that repeated code into BufferIsExclusiveLocked and as we need bufHdr in BufferIsDirty which is assigned in BufferIsExclusiveLocked,so I had to change the signature of BufferIsExclusiveLocked by adding (BufferDesc **bufHdr).
Regards,
Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla,
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: