Hi Melih, > I changed these names and updated the patch.
Thanks for the updated patch! > Aleksander, do you still think the average usagecount is a bit useless? Or > does it make sense to you to keep it like this? I don't mind keeping the average. > I'm not sure how to avoid any undefined behaviour without locks though. > Even with locks, performance is much better. But is it good enough for > production? Potentially you could avoid taking locks by utilizing atomic operations and lock-free algorithms. But these algorithms are typically error-prone and not always produce a faster code than the lock-based ones. I'm pretty confident this is out of scope of this particular patch. The patch v6 had several defacts: * Trailing whitespaces (can be checked by applying the patch with `git am`) * Wrong code formatting (can be fixed with pgindent) * Several empty lines were removed which is not related to the proposed change (can be seen with `git diff`) * An unlikely division by zero if buffers_used = 0 * Missing part of the commit message added in v4 Here is a corrected patch v7. To me it seems to be in pretty good shape, unless cfbot and/or other hackers will report any issues. -- Best regards, Aleksander Alekseev
v7-0001-Added-pg_buffercache_summary-function.patch
Description: Binary data
