pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>
To: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Cc: Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Subject: Re: Checkpointer write combining
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 10:00:40 +0800
Message-ID: <4ECED07F-75F2-46D4-8F71-0B0DFA350777@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAKRu_ZfneK9hEQs-ht2696aJ3ZSJs1c_-rXzBmyKjPDYRnqgA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAKRu_bcWRvRwZUop_d9vzF9nHAiT+-uPzkJ=S3ShZ1GqeAYOw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAKRu_bQWv5hJH0ncbGw8BEufAxdwMw4KY0KYuYLaw6KA=fpCA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN55FZ3FOv+ubp4yyFKt=Rr+ceM0tfXRDVr6nKgqSyWXh8G8Gg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAKRu_Yurj0sabXZB5EVqO3fKgwN1vELe1H4e0s1zXV3MKbZjQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAKRu_bv2=_DU-tYFdTQJj7ohKUyFnrJvETyCes3_NpFzvVt4Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAKRu_bz=t1FGXhUytPx9SC648-ozb-UxBps4zWUmS2XMg4Z4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<2FA0BAC7-5413-4ABD-94CA-4398FE77750D@gmail.com>
	<CAAKRu_atZuU3gYY6hVVuvqDW+mfXM+fCWCyYODbZPesxyr=y6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<3FC2442D-1012-4079-A009-A0B8C45E092D@gmail.com>
	<CAAKRu_b3k+KbeFhFgDZ26PvJbvL9W5HYwKrn8bBS4CTU13khpw@mail.gmail.com>
	<6B520FA8-B805-4C0D-B8B9-202B3AF168A9@gmail.com>
	<CAAKRu_Z8GtkTPsbScp8QoNF=V1YT3cVT6mPf1sR-NAtSE+jzoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<0198DBB9-4A76-49E4-87F8-43D46DD0FD76@gmail.com>
	<CAAKRu_ZfneK9hEQs-ht2696aJ3ZSJs1c_-rXzBmyKjPDYRnqgA@mail.gmail.com>



> On Nov 19, 2025, at 02:49, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I no longer remember why I made that patch WIP, so I've removed that
> designation.

I just reviewed 0007. It removes the second parameter "bool skip_recently_used”  from SyncOneBuffer. The function is static and is only called in one place with skip_recently_used=true, thus removing the parameter seems reasonable, and without considering pinned buffer, the function is simplified a little bit.

I only got a tiny comment:
```
+		 * We can make these check without taking the buffer content lock so
``` 

As you changed “this” to “these”, “check” should be changed to “checks” accordingly.

Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/









view thread (52+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <4ECED07F-75F2-46D4-8F71-0B0DFA350777@gmail.com>
Permalink:  ../4ECED07F-75F2-46D4-8F71-0B0DFA350777@gmail.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/4ECED07F-75F2-46D4-8F71-0B0DFA350777@gmail.com

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: li.evan.chao@gmail.com, melanieplageman@gmail.com, byavuz81@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, andres@anarazel.de
  Subject: Re: Checkpointer write combining
  In-Reply-To: <4ECED07F-75F2-46D4-8F71-0B0DFA350777@gmail.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox