| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SearchSysCacheTuple(Copy) |
| Date: | 2000-11-14 15:39:06 |
| Message-ID: | 2532.974216346@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> A more serious objection to SearchSysCacheTupleCopy is that once the
>> tuple is copied out of the syscache, there isn't any mechanism to
>> detect whether it's still valid. If an SI message arrives for a
>> recently-copied tuple, we have no way to know if we have a problem
>> or not.
> Is it more serious than doing the wrong thing silently ?
It'd still be doing the wrong thing silently, in my opinion.
This class of bugs has been there since the beginning of Postgres,
so I do not feel that we need to panic about it. Let's take the
time to design and implement a proper solution, rather than expending
effort on a stopgap solution that'll have to be undone later.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-11-14 17:45:36 | Re: Re: UUNET socket-file-location patch |
| Previous Message | Larry Rosenman | 2000-11-14 13:13:00 | Re: Syslog Facility Patch |