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

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(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 18:02:02
Message-ID: 200101091802.NAA17888@candle.pha.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.

I assumed it was the problem of table lookups with no locking. No idea
what the MVCC mention is about.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mikheev, Vadim 2001-01-09 18:11:31 RE: Quite strange crash
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-01-09 18:00:55 Re: Well, we seem to be proof against cache-inval problems now