Re: [HACKERS] Ye olde "relation doesn't quite exist" problem - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Ye olde "relation doesn't quite exist" problem
Date
Msg-id 13539.928467275@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Ye olde "relation doesn't quite exist" problem  (Vadim Mikheev <vadim@krs.ru>)
List pgsql-hackers
Vadim Mikheev <vadim@krs.ru> writes:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Thanks.  I am a little confused.  I thought you just flushed only on
>                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> elog()/abort.  How does the new code work.
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> It seems as more right thing to do.

What I just committed does the cache flush whenever
RelationFlushRelation is called --- in particular, elog/abort will
cause it to happen if there are any created-in-current-transaction
relations to be disposed of.  But otherwise, no flush.

The obvious question about that is "what about modifications to
cacheable tuples that are not triggered by a relation creation?"
I think that those cases are OK because they are covered by the
shared-invalidation code.  At least, we have no bug reports to
prove the contrary...
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Vadim Mikheev
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.5 items
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.5 items