On 2014-09-25 14:43:14 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 25 September 2014 10:41, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 2014-09-25 10:24:39 +0530, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: > >> At 2014-09-24 11:09:24 +0200, and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: > >> > I think it's completely unacceptable to copy a visibility routine. > >> > >> OK. Which visibility routine should I use, and should I try to create a > >> variant that doesn't set hint bits? > > > > I've not yet followed your premise that you actually need one that > > doesn't set hint bits... > > Not least because I'm trying to solve a similar problem on another > thread, so no need to make a special case here.
That's mostly unrelated though - Abhijit wants to avoid them because he tried to avoid having *any* form of lock on the buffer. That's the reason he tried avoid hint bit setting. Since I don't believe that's safe (at least there's by far not enough evidence about it), there's simply no reason to avoid it. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
