From: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | pg(at)bowt(dot)ie |
Cc: | andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Ideas for a relcache test mode about missing invalidations |
Date: | 2018-08-09 04:11:31 |
Message-ID: | 20180809.131131.56722332.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello.
At Fri, 3 Aug 2018 15:42:22 -0700, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote in <CAH2-WzmXcHXa0MKx5a9NiaaCOE4E4T_rnaHa-N4gN-VoWUT8aw(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 12:34 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> >> I reread through the thread and IUCC, drop_index() is sending
> >> inval on the owing relation and invalidation happens (that is,
> >
> > I finally understand that I was totally inept. This came from
> > *the result* of the original -bug thread.
>
> I certainly would not say that you were in any way inept. Perhaps
> there is an argument for *also* doing what you propose. I am not
> dismissive of your idea.
I jumped to the URL to see the thread but it was not
up-to-date. It's the cause of my confusion that I thought the
problem was the error seen *after* the invalidation fix patch in
my repo.
> It seems like a question that should be considered separately, on
> another thread. If you still want to pursue it.
Thanks. I might bring this again later.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2018-08-09 04:35:34 | Re: Internal error XX000 with enable_partition_pruning=on, pg 11 beta1 on Debian |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2018-08-09 04:05:56 | Re: partition tree inspection functions |