Re: [HACKERS] Another nasty cache problem

From: Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Another nasty cache problem
Date: 2000-01-31 12:57:48
Message-ID: Pine.GSO.4.02A.10001311357010.12762-100000@Hund.DoCS.UU.SE
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > Perhaps the caches shouldn't store ctid? Not sure.
>
> I am guilt of that. There are a few place where I grab the tuple from
> the cache, then use that to update the heap. I thought it was a nifty
> solution at the time. I thought I used the CacheCopy calls for that,
> but I am not positive. Even if I did, that doesn't help because the
> copy probably has an invalid tid at that point, thought I have opened
> the table. Maybe I have to make sure I open the table before geting the
> tid from the cache.

Urgh, I better check my code for that as well ... :(

>
> Is it only the tid that is of concern. If so, that can probably be
> fixed somehow.
>
>
>

--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2000-01-31 13:14:11 Re: Case-folding bogosity in new psql
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2000-01-31 12:55:15 Re: [HACKERS] Another nasty cache problem