Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Well, considering how seldom new pages will be added to the visibility
>>> map, it seems to me we could afford to send out a relcache inval event
>>> when that happens. Then rd_vm_nblocks_cache could be treated as
>>> trustworthy.
>
>> A relcache invalidation sounds awfully heavy-weight.
>
> It really isn't.
Okay, then. I'll use relcache invalidation for both the FSM and
visibility map.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
