Re: Well, we seem to be proof against cache-inval problems now

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: Well, we seem to be proof against cache-inval problems now
Date: 2001-01-05 07:55:23
Message-ID: 3A557DEB.36D789AB@tpf.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I just finished running the parallel regress tests with inval.c rigged
> to flush the relcache and syscache at every available opportunity,
> that is anytime we could recognize a shared-cache-inval message from
> another backend (see diff below). This setup gives a whole new universe
> of meaning to the word "slow" --- it took *three full days* to run the
> standard "make check" procedure, including eighteen hours just to do the
> "vacuum template1" part of initdb. I kid you not. But it worked.
> Looks like the unexpected-cache-entry-drop class of problems are indeed
> gone.
>

Great.
Thanks.

Hiroshi Inoue

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2001-01-05 10:49:41 Re: Missing ColLabel tokens
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-01-05 07:39:12 Re: Re: time + date_part oddness?