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

I barely understand the items sometimes.

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> 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.
>
> I checked the CVS archives and found that you added that TODO item on
> 4-Feb-2000. I could not, however, find any relevant discussion in the
> pghackers archives in the first few days of February. Do you have
> anything archived that might help narrow it down?
>
> regards, tom lane
>

--
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