| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: should ConstraintRelationId ins/upd cause relcache invals? |
| Date: | 2019-01-21 22:40:17 |
| Message-ID: | 201901212240.rrxptrl6vyek@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Jan-21, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > At https://postgr.es/m/201901182216.nr5clsxrn624@alvherre.pgsql I posted
> > a simplistic for the specific problem I found by calling
> > CacheInvalidateRelcache in the problem spot. But I'm wondering if the
> > correct fix isn't to have CacheInvalidateHeapTuple deal with FK
> > pg_constraint tuples instead, per the attached patch.
>
> +1, this is safer than expecting retail relcache inval calls to be
> added in all the right places.
Thanks, pushed.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-01-21 22:42:02 | Re: should ConstraintRelationId ins/upd cause relcache invals? |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-01-21 22:15:45 | Re: COPY FROM WHEN condition |