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

I barely understand the items sometimes.

> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >>>> Can this now be marked as done?
> >>>> * Modification  of  pg_class  can  happen while table in use by  another
> >>>> backend.  Might  lead  to  MVCC  inside  of  syscache
> >> 
> >> I'm not sure.  Do you have any record of what the concern was, in
> >> detail?  I don't understand what the TODO item is trying to say.
> 
> > I assumed it was the problem of table lookups with no locking.  No idea
> > what the MVCC mention is about.
> 
> I checked the CVS archives and found that you added that TODO item on
> 4-Feb-2000.  I could not, however, find any relevant discussion in the
> pghackers archives in the first few days of February.  Do you have
> anything archived that might help narrow it down?
> 
>             regards, tom lane
> 


--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026