Hi, On August 4, 2022 4:11:13 PM PDT, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >I wrote: >> And while I'm piling on, how is this bit in RelationCopyStorageUsingBuffer >> not completely broken? > >[pile^2] Also, what is the rationale for locking the target buffer >but not the source buffer? That seems pretty hard to justify from >here, even granting the assumption that we don't expect any other >processes to be interested in these buffers (which I don't grant, >because checkpointer).
I'm not arguing it's good or should stay that way, but it's probably okayish that checkpointer / bgwriter have access, given that they will never modify buffers. They just take a lock to prevent concurrent modifications, which RelationCopyStorageUsingBuffer hopefully doesn't do. Andres -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
