Re: [HACKERS] Idea for better handling of cntxDirty

2002-11-15 Thread Mikheev, Vadim
> Wouldn't it work for cntxDirty to be set not by LockBuffer, but by > XLogInsert for each buffer that is included in its argument list? I thought to add separate call to mark context dirty but above should work if all callers to XLogInsert always pass all modified buffers - please check. Vadim

Re: [HACKERS] Idea for better handling of cntxDirty

2002-11-12 Thread Tom Lane
"Mikheev, Vadim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Wouldn't it work for cntxDirty to be set not by LockBuffer, but by >> XLogInsert for each buffer that is included in its argument list? > I thought to add separate call to mark context dirty but above > should work if all callers to XLogInsert always

[HACKERS] Idea for better handling of cntxDirty

2002-11-11 Thread Tom Lane
Vadim, In LockBuffer() you wrote else if (mode == BUFFER_LOCK_EXCLUSIVE) { LWLockAcquire(buf->cntx_lock, LW_EXCLUSIVE); /* * This is not the best place to set cntxDirty flag (eg indices do * not always change buffer they lock in excl mode). But please