From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Cache invalidation bug in RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap() |
Date: | 2014-05-14 17:32:43 |
Message-ID: | 894.1400088763@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-05-14 12:15:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> And why does the header
>> comment for RelationGetIndexList make no mention of this new side-effect?
>> Somebody did a seriously poor job of adding this functionality to
>> relcache.
> It's not like it's not documented: There's a comment about it in struct
> RelationData. I must have missed that rd_oidindex has a comment abou
> it's lifetime over RelationGetIndexList().
If rd_replidindex is being managed like rd_oidindex, then it should be
managed just like rd_oidindex, including getting reset in all the places
rd_oidindex is. This might be just a matter of cleanliness but I think
it's important for readability and debuggability.
I notice also that rd_keyattr and rd_idattr have been implemented with
bad copies of the logic for rd_indexattr. This is at least leading
to a permanent memory leak in CacheMemoryContext during every relcache
flush, and maybe worse things. The bugs for rd_keyattr appear to predate
your patch though.
Working on a patch for this now. One thing I'm wondering about is
RelationSetIndexList. It's probably okay for it not to touch rd_keyattr
and rd_idattr, but I'm not too clear on what the use cases for those
attnum sets are.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-05-14 17:42:09 | Re: Cache invalidation bug in RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap() |
Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2014-05-14 16:40:04 | Re: 9.4 release notes |