Re: Add pg_buffercache_mark_dirty[_all] functions to the pg_buffercache - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Add pg_buffercache_mark_dirty[_all] functions to the pg_buffercache
Date
Msg-id aSjtgUyUzVc5kyTt@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Add pg_buffercache_mark_dirty[_all] functions to the pg_buffercache  (Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 10:59:47AM +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> I agree with you, the patches make more sense this way.
>
> The patches are split into two in v10. There are no changes from v9,
> except that one extra blank line was removed [1].

Note that there were a couple of things incorrect in the docs.  I have
done a sweep to improve the wording in the comments and the docs
themselves, then applied the result.

Testing the valid case for the "_all" function flavor could be costly
for installcheck so I am feeling a bit reserved on its cost.  We are
doing it for the evict case as well, so I have kept it at the end to
keep the coverage.  If it proves to be an issue or if there is a
concern with this part, I would be OK to remove it.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Support tid range scan in parallel?
Next
From: Peter Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication