Re: should ConstraintRelationId ins/upd cause relcache invals?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: should ConstraintRelationId ins/upd cause relcache invals?
Date: 2019-01-21 20:08:17
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> While working on bugfixes for FK problems in partitioned tables, I came
> across some behavior that appears to stem from our inclusion of foreign
> keys in relcache, without sufficient care for invalidating the relcache
> entries when the foreign key set for the table changes. (Namely, a
> partition retains its relcache entry with no FKs when an FK is added to
> the parent table, leading a DELETE to skip running action triggers).


> At I posted
> a simplistic for the specific problem I found by calling
> CacheInvalidateRelcache in the problem spot. But I'm wondering if the
> correct fix isn't to have CacheInvalidateHeapTuple deal with FK
> pg_constraint tuples instead, per the attached patch.

+1, this is safer than expecting retail relcache inval calls to be
added in all the right places.

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2019-01-21 20:18:08 Re: Thread-unsafe coding in ecpg
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-01-21 20:05:23 Re: Thread-unsafe coding in ecpg