From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Suspicious behaviour on applying XLOG_HEAP2_VISIBLE. |
Date: | 2016-04-26 02:47:19 |
Message-ID: | 20160426024719.an6k7atgrqjo52jm@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Thanks for looking into this.
On 2016-04-26 11:43:06 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > ISTM we should additionally replace the CacheInvalidateSmgr() with a
> > CacheInvalidateRelcache() and document that that implies an smgr
> > invalidation. Alternatively we could log smgr (and relmapper)
> > invalidations as well, but that's not quite non-invasive either; but
> > might be a good long-term idea to keep things simpler.
> >
> > Comments?
>
> Yeah, this looks like a good idea at the end.
You mean the bit about making smgr invalidations logged?
> As the invalidation patch is aimed at being backpatched, this may be
> something to do as well in back-branches.
I'm a bit split here. I think forcing processing of invalidations at
moments they've previously never been processed is a bit risky for the
back branches. But on the other hand relcache invalidations are only
processed at end-of-xact, which isn't really correct for the code at
hand :/
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-04-26 03:25:54 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add trigonometric functions that work in degrees. |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-04-26 02:43:06 | Re: Suspicious behaviour on applying XLOG_HEAP2_VISIBLE. |