I adjusted the code a bit more to look like the 16 coding including
restoring some very useful comments that had been lost, and pushed.
Thanks very much to Alexander and Noah for (independently) chasing
this down and reporting, testing etc, and Alvaro and Robert for review
comments.
(Passing thou
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 8:05 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> In passing, I noticed that WaitReadBuffers has zero comments, which
> seems an insufficient number of them.
Ack. Here is a patch for that. I guess I hadn't put a comment there
because it's hard to write anything without sort of duplicating
New version. Same code as v2, but comments improved to explain the
reasoning, with reference to README's buffer access rules. I'm
planning to push this soon if there are no objections.
From 1fa26f407622cd69d82f3b4ea68fddf2c357cf06 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Munro
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024
On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 12:47 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 4:05 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > static void
> > > -ZeroBuffer(Buffer buffer, ReadBufferMode mode)
> > > +ZeroBuffer(Buffer buffer, ReadBufferMode mode, bool zero)
> >
> > This change makes the API very strange. Sh
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 4:05 AM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > static void
> > -ZeroBuffer(Buffer buffer, ReadBufferMode mode)
> > +ZeroBuffer(Buffer buffer, ReadBufferMode mode, bool zero)
>
> This change makes the API very strange. Should the function be called
> ZeroAndLockBuffer() instead? Then t
Hello Thomas,
07.06.2024 09:06, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 3:06 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 3:00 PM Alexander Lakhin wrote:
My bisect run ended with:
210622c60e1a9db2e2730140b8106ab57d259d15 is the first bad commit
Author: Thomas Munro
Date: Wed Apr 3 00
On 2024-Jun-07, Thomas Munro wrote:
> static void
> -ZeroBuffer(Buffer buffer, ReadBufferMode mode)
> +ZeroBuffer(Buffer buffer, ReadBufferMode mode, bool zero)
This change makes the API very strange. Should the function be called
ZeroAndLockBuffer() instead? Then the addition of a "bool zero"
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 3:06 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 3:00 PM Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> > My bisect run ended with:
> > 210622c60e1a9db2e2730140b8106ab57d259d15 is the first bad commit
> >
> > Author: Thomas Munro
> > Date: Wed Apr 3 00:03:08 2024 +1300
> >
> > Provi
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 3:00 PM Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> My bisect run ended with:
> 210622c60e1a9db2e2730140b8106ab57d259d15 is the first bad commit
>
> Author: Thomas Munro
> Date: Wed Apr 3 00:03:08 2024 +1300
>
> Provide vectored variant of ReadBuffer().
>
> Other buildfarm failures wi
Hello Noah,
06.06.2024 22:07, Noah Misch wrote:
I don't know, but if the locks are really missing now, I feel like the
first question is "which commit got rid of them?". It's a little hard
to believe that they've never been there and somehow nobody has
noticed.
Then again, maybe we have; see
On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 12:36:32PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 6:00 AM Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> > Am I missing something or the the page buffer indeed lacks locking there?
>
> I don't know, but if the locks are really missing now, I feel like the
> first question is "which
Hello Robert,
06.06.2024 19:36, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 6:00 AM Alexander Lakhin wrote:
Am I missing something or the the page buffer indeed lacks locking there?
I don't know, but if the locks are really missing now, I feel like the
first question is "which commit got rid of
On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 6:00 AM Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> Am I missing something or the the page buffer indeed lacks locking there?
I don't know, but if the locks are really missing now, I feel like the
first question is "which commit got rid of them?". It's a little hard
to believe that they've n
13 matches
Mail list logo
