RE: Getting rid of setheapoverride (was Re: [COMMITTERS] heap.c)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> 
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >>>> Tom, any chance we can change the name of setheapoverried to 
> something
> >>>> that makes sense?
> >> 
> >> Actually, I thought the plan was to eliminate it entirely in favor of
> >> using CommandCounterIncrement when we need to make tuples visible.
> >> There was a thread about that back in September, but I guess no one's
> >> gotten around to actually doing it.
> 
> > I remember in the old days being totally confused about its purpose. 
> > That was my motivation to change it.  Can I do something to help fix
> > this?
> 
> Actually, according to my notes I had put off doing anything with this
> because Hiroshi pointed out that CommandCounterIncrement had a shared-
> cache-invalidation problem (it sent SI messages for changes that we
> couldn't yet be sure would get committed).
> 
> Hiroshi's message last Monday stated that he'd fixed that problem,
> so maybe now it's safe to start using CommandCounterIncrement more
> heavily.  Hiroshi, what do you think --- do you trust
> CommandCounterIncrement now?
>

Oh,I was just looking at heapoverride stuff quite accidentally. 
Yes, this call is ugly and should be replaced by CommandCounterIncrement().

Regards.

Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp