From: | Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] couldn't rollback cache ? |
Date: | 1999-09-20 02:17:18 |
Message-ID: | 37E5992E.FDEE6427@krs.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > But as far as I see,neither relation cache nor system catalog cache
> > aren't be rollbacked correctly.
> > I added time_qualification_check to SearchSysCache() on trial
> > (see the patch at the end of this posting).
>
> Hmm. This must be a bug of very long standing; surprising it hasn't
> been noticed before. I think you are probably right, because a little
> glimpsing shows that SearchSysCache() is the *only* place in the whole
> system where HeapKeyTest() is called directly --- everyone else goes
> through HeapTupleSatisfies() which adds a timequal check of one sort or
> another. I don't know the timequal stuff at all, but it seems likely
> that we want one here. (Vadim, is this fix right?)
Sorry, but currently I have no ability to deal with anything
but WAL. As for cache/SI issues, I would like to see shared
catalog cache implemented (and remove current SI stuff),
but I was not able to do it for ~ 2 years, -:(
Vadim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 1999-09-20 02:47:49 | RE: [HACKERS] couldn't rollback cache ? |
Previous Message | Vadim Mikheev | 1999-09-20 01:56:40 | Re: [HACKERS] Anyone understand shared buffer refcount mechanism? |