Re: Well, we seem to be proof against cache-inval problems now

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Well, we seem to be proof against cache-inval problems now
Date: 2001-01-10 00:37:46
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>>> Can this now be marked as done?
>>>> * Modification of pg_class can happen while table in use by another
>>>> backend. Might lead to MVCC inside of syscache
>> I'm not sure. Do you have any record of what the concern was, in
>> detail? I don't understand what the TODO item is trying to say.

> I assumed it was the problem of table lookups with no locking. No idea
> what the MVCC mention is about.

I checked the CVS archives and found that you added that TODO item on
4-Feb-2000. I could not, however, find any relevant discussion in the
pghackers archives in the first few days of February. Do you have
anything archived that might help narrow it down?

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-01-10 00:45:01 Re: BETWEEN [SYMMETRIC | ASYMMETRIC]
Previous Message Robert B. Easter 2001-01-10 00:35:09 Re: BETWEEN [SYMMETRIC | ASYMMETRIC]