From: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [9.2] Confusion over CacheRegisterSyscacheCallback |
Date: | 2012-03-07 16:49:51 |
Message-ID: | 20120307164951.GA27003@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 11:16:06AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:27:11PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Or you could do like setrefs.c does, and assume you know how to
> >> calculate the hash value for an OID-keyed cache.
>
> > Ok, the hashoid() hack works. But please take it as report from
> > the ground that this API is useful outside of core and it would
> > be good if it stays useful.
>
> Well, you have a point there --- what setrefs.c is doing is already
> pretty grotty, and it would get more so if we added tracking of other
> objects that used non-OID cache keys (though I'm not sure what those
> would be).
>
> We could expose some macros patterned after SearchSysCacheN that
> take a cache identifier plus the same key values that would be
> needed to search that cache, and return the hash value. Does that
> seem reasonable?
Yes.
--
marko
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-07 16:56:33 | Re: patch for a locale-specific bug in regression tests (REL9_1_STABLE) |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-03-07 16:47:53 | Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER? |