Re: Well, we seem to be proof against cache-inval problems now

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Well, we seem to be proof against cache-inval problems now
Date: 2001-01-09 18:00:55
Message-ID: 1667.979063255@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Can this now be marked as done?
> * Modification of pg_class can happen while table in use by another
> backend. Might lead to MVCC inside of syscache

I'm not sure. Do you have any record of what the concern was, in
detail? I don't understand what the TODO item is trying to say.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-01-09 18:02:02 Re: Well, we seem to be proof against cache-inval problems now
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-01-09 17:41:24 Re: Quite strange crash