From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Subscription test 013_partition.pl fails under CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS |
Date: | 2020-09-16 03:49:36 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LRwumMPmzsMpHhG1y3nwzLzXqmdOiQVUpzj6jwNC++3g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 1:16 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> It's not really clear to me why setting localreloid to zero is a sane
> way to represent "this entry needs to be revalidated". I think a
> separate flag would be more appropriate. Once we have lock on the
> target relation, it seems to me that no interesting changes should
> be possible as long as we have lock; so there's no very good reason
> to destroy useful state to remind ourselves that we should recheck
> it next time.
>
So, can we assume that the current code can only cause the problem in
CCA builds bot not in any practical scenario because after having a
lock on relation probably there shouldn't be any invalidation which
leads to this problem?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-09-16 04:11:02 | Re: Subscription test 013_partition.pl fails under CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-09-16 03:45:58 | Re: Online checksums verification in the backend |