Andres Freund wrote: > Now a) and b) are recent oversights of mine. I'd apparently not realized > that there's detailed docs on this in buffer/README. But c) is pretty > old - essentially 5d50873 from 2005. > > I wonder if it's worthwhile to go into that level of detail - seems > kinda likely to get out of date, as evidenced by it being outdated for > ~10 years.
I think it makes sense to keep a high-level overview in the README; in particular the description of how users of this API would use it should be there. But the implementation details should live in comments inside the file. I don't think the details of the buffer replacement algorithm should be in the README. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, 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
