On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Teodor Sigaev <teo...@sigaev.ru> wrote:
> if (buf->usage_count < BM_MAX_USAGE_COUNT) >> if (BUF_STATE_GET_USAGECOUNT(buf_state) != BM_MAX_USAGE_COUNT) >> >> being prone to paranoia, I prefer the first, but I've seen both >> styles in >> the code so I don't know if it's worth futzing with. >> >> >> Ok, let's be paranoic and do this same way as before. Revised patch is >> attached. >> > > I see the change was done in 9.6 release cycle in commit > 48354581a49c30f5757c203415aa8412d85b0f70 at April, 10. Does it mean the > fix should be backpatched too? I think so. This patch reverts unintentional change and can be considered as bug fix. BTW, sorry for unicode filename in previous letter. Patch with normal ASCII name is attached. ------ Alexander Korotkov Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
put-buffer-usagecount-logic-back-2.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
