| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com, sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com, wangsh(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com, osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: "unexpected duplicate for tablespace" problem in logical replication |
| Date: | 2024-01-15 21:32:07 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYuONjrkcSDJC60RoaVQ_q3JP5H4b-5uiK+tanONYJYbA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 3:38 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Maybe. It might be better for the cache not to register temprary
> relations at all.
This point seems worthy of serious consideration to me. Is there any
reason why we need RelidByRelfilenumber() to work with temporary
relations at all? I understand that the current behavior is exposed
via the SQL-callable function, but maybe that's not really
intentional. If there's no other use of RelidByRelfilenumber() that
needs to care about permanent relations intrinsically, I think we
shouldn't hesitate to just cut them out of the mechanism entirely.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2024-01-16 01:58:04 | Re: "unexpected duplicate for tablespace" problem in logical replication |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-01-15 16:29:26 | Re: BUG #17798: Incorrect memory access occurs when using BEFORE ROW UPDATE trigger |