Re: Well, we seem to be proof against cache-inval problems now
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Well, we seem to be proof against cache-inval problems now |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 7885.979087066@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Well, we seem to be proof against cache-inval problems now (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Well, we seem to be proof against cache-inval problems
now
Re: Well, we seem to be proof against cache-inval problems now |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: