From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ResetSystemCaches(was Re: relation ### modified while in use) |
Date: | 2000-11-06 23:35:10 |
Message-ID: | 3A07402D.DFB23EB6@tpf.co.jp |
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:
> > RelationCacheInvalidate() is called from ResetSystemCaches()
> > and calles RelationFlushRelation() for all relation descriptors
> > except some nailed system relations.
> > I'm wondering why nailed relations could be exceptions.
> > Conversely why must RelationCacheInvalidate() call
> > RelationFlushRelation() for other system relations ?
> > Isn't it sufficient to call smgrclose() and replace rd_rel
> > member of system relations by the latest ones instead
> > of calling RelationFlushRelation() ?
>
> Possibly you could do fixrdesc() instead of just ignoring the report
> entirely for nailed-in relations. Not sure it's worth worrying about
> though --- in practice, what is this going to make possible? You can't
> change the structure of a nailed-in system catalog, nor will adding
> triggers or rules to it work very well, so I'm not quite seeing the
> point.
>
Hmm,my point is on not nailed system relations(indexes)
not on already nailed relations.
Coundn't we skip system relations(indexes) in Relation
CacheInvalidate() ?
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2000-11-07 01:11:33 | Re: RE: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/access/transam (xact.c xlog.c) |
Previous Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2000-11-06 22:12:07 | RE: Transaction ID wraparound: problem and proposed sol ution |