Re: should ConstraintRelationId ins/upd cause relcache invals?

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> While working on bugfixes for FK problems in partitioned tables, I came
> across some behavior that appears to stem from our inclusion of foreign
> keys in relcache, without sufficient care for invalidating the relcache
> entries when the foreign key set for the table changes. (Namely, a
> partition retains its relcache entry with no FKs when an FK is added to
> the parent table, leading a DELETE to skip running action triggers).

Ooops.

> 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.

regards, tom lane