"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 4/3/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> If the invalidation were something that *had* to be accounted for,
>> such as a dropped index, then there should be adequate locking for it;
>> plancache is not introducing any new bug that wasn't there before.
> Oh yes, I was wondering about the other parts of the code, not
> plan invalidation. Never mind, it was just a thought.
Well, as that comment notes, we've always had to worry about being sure
that the relcache data structures are up-to-date (or sufficiently
up-to-date, anyway). I think it's reasonably well debugged.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-04-03 19:02:56|
|Subject: Re: "Garbled" postgres logs |
|Previous:||From: Pavan Deolasee||Date: 2007-04-03 18:27:56|
|Subject: Re: Plan invalidation|