| From: | Peter Eisentraut <e99re41(at)DoCS(dot)UU(dot)SE> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Another nasty cache problem |
| Date: | 2000-01-31 12:57:48 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.02A.10001311357010.12762-100000@Hund.DoCS.UU.SE |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Perhaps the caches shouldn't store ctid? Not sure.
>
> I am guilt of that. There are a few place where I grab the tuple from
> the cache, then use that to update the heap. I thought it was a nifty
> solution at the time. I thought I used the CacheCopy calls for that,
> but I am not positive. Even if I did, that doesn't help because the
> copy probably has an invalid tid at that point, thought I have opened
> the table. Maybe I have to make sure I open the table before geting the
> tid from the cache.
Urgh, I better check my code for that as well ... :(
>
> Is it only the tid that is of concern. If so, that can probably be
> fixed somehow.
>
>
>
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders vaeg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-01-31 13:14:11 | Re: Case-folding bogosity in new psql |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-01-31 12:55:15 | Re: [HACKERS] Another nasty cache problem |