From: | "Euler Taveira" <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "Amit Kapila" <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [BUG]Invalidate relcache when setting REPLICA IDENTITY |
Date: | 2021-11-12 19:17:16 |
Message-ID: | bcf89ed4-b632-482f-8f1b-0e4f06723ef7@www.fastmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 12, 2021, at 3:10 AM, houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 1:33 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 10:50 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > But won't that generate invalidation for the rel twice in the case
> > > (change Replica Identity from Nothing to some index) you mentioned in
> > > the previous email?
> > >
> >
> > Oh, I see the point. I think this is okay because
> > AddRelcacheInvalidationMessage doesn't allow to add duplicate rel
> > invalidation. If that is the case I wonder why not simply register
> > invalidation without any check in the for loop as was the case with
> > Tang's original patch?
>
> OK, I also think the code in Tang's original patch is fine.
> Attach the patch which register invalidation without any check in the for loop.
WFM.
--
Euler Taveira
EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-11-12 19:29:22 | Re: Is heap_page_prune() stats collector accounting wrong? |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-11-12 18:45:52 | Is heap_page_prune() stats collector accounting wrong? |