Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Another nasty cache problem

From: Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Another nasty cache problem
Date: 2000-01-31 12:57:48
Message-ID: Pine.GSO.4.02A.10001311357010.12762-100000@Hund.DoCS.UU.SE (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > Perhaps the caches shouldn't store ctid?  Not sure.
> 
> I am guilt of that.  There are a few place where I grab the tuple from
> the cache, then use that to update the heap.  I thought it was a nifty
> solution at the time.  I thought I used the CacheCopy calls for that,
> but I am not positive.  Even if I did, that doesn't help because the
> copy probably has an invalid tid at that point, thought I have opened
> the table. Maybe I have to make sure I open the table before geting the
> tid from the cache.

Urgh, I better check my code for that as well ... :(

> 
> Is it only the tid that is of concern.  If so, that can probably be
> fixed somehow.
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2000-01-31 13:14:11
Subject: Re: Case-folding bogosity in new psql
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2000-01-31 12:55:15
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Another nasty cache problem

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group