| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Cache lookup errors with functions manipulation object addresses |
| Date: | 2019-10-17 01:29:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20191017012947.GB5605@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:04:57PM +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> Thanks for the update. Looking at v17 0003 I have one more question. In all the
> places where we have to do systable_endscan, it followed by heap_close,
> although in the rest of the file table_close is used. I guess this logic is not
> heap specific and should also use table_close?
We need to use table_close as we cannot assume that the relation will
always be opened for heap. This patch set is around for so long, so
that was a rotten part still able to compile as we have a macro to
cover the gap. Thanks for noticing that. I am sending an updated
patch set in a but, Alvaro had more comments.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-10-17 01:37:56 | Re: Cache lookup errors with functions manipulation object addresses |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-10-17 01:04:12 | Re: v12.0: segfault in reindex CONCURRENTLY |