Re: pgsql: Add C comment about why we send cache invalidation messages for

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Add C comment about why we send cache invalidation messages for
Date: 2011-09-06 20:39:09
Message-ID: 201109062039.p86Kd9904721@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Add C comment about why we send cache invalidation messages for
> > session-local objects.
>
> This comment seems inaccurate and bizarrely placed. What question
> were you trying to answer?

It was in response to my email where I asked why we are sending cache
invalidation messages for temporary tables that can't be seen by any
other backends:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-03/msg00844.php

i.e. why are we generating unnecessary invalidation traffic. Is there a
better place for the comment?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-09-06 21:07:13 pgsql: Improve comment about handling of temp tables in shared-inval co
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2011-09-06 20:07:00 pgsql: Correct ancient logic mistake in assertion