|From:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>|
|To:||Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|Subject:||Re: Ideas for a relcache test mode about missing invalidations|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On 2018-08-02 19:18:11 +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> At Wed, 1 Aug 2018 09:25:18 -0700, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote in <20180801162518(dot)jnb2ql5dfmgwp4qo(at)alap3(dot)anarazel(dot)de>
> > Hi,
> > The issue at  is caused by missing invalidations, and  seems like
> > a likely candidate too. I wonder if it'd be good to have a relcache test
> > mode akin to CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS and RELCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE, that tries
> > to ensure that we've done sufficiently to ensure the right invalidations
> > are sent.
> > I think what we'd kind of want is to ensure that relcache entries are
> > rebuilt at the earliest possible time, but *not* later. That'd mean
> > they're out of date if there's missing invalidations. Unfortunately I'm
> > not clear on how that'd be achievable? Ideas?
> > The best I can come up with is to code some additional dependencies into
> > CacheInvalidateHeapTuple(), and add tracking ensuring we've sent the
> > right messages. But that seems somewhat painful and filled with holes.
> >  http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKoxK%2B5fVodiCtMsXKV_1YAKXbzwSfp7DgDqUmcUAzeAhf%3DHEQ%40mail.gmail.com
> >  https://email@example.com
> As for , it is not a issue on invalidation. It happens also if
> the relation has any index and even drop is not needed. The
> following steps are sufficient.
Huh? I don't think this is a proper fix. But please let's argue over in
the other that in the other thread.
|Next Message||Laurenz Albe||2018-08-02 16:08:27||Re: Problem during Windows service start|
|Previous Message||Alexander Korotkov||2018-08-02 15:17:01||Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp().|