Hi, On 2018-08-02 19:18:11 +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > At Wed, 1 Aug 2018 09:25:18 -0700, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote > in <20180801162518.jnb2ql5dfmgwp...@alap3.anarazel.de> > > Hi, > > > > The issue at [1] is caused by missing invalidations, and [2] seems like > > a likely candidate too. I wonder if it'd be good to have a relcache test > > mode akin to CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS and RELCACHE_FORCE_RELEASE, that tries > > to ensure that we've done sufficiently to ensure the right invalidations > > are sent. > > > > I think what we'd kind of want is to ensure that relcache entries are > > rebuilt at the earliest possible time, but *not* later. That'd mean > > they're out of date if there's missing invalidations. Unfortunately I'm > > not clear on how that'd be achievable? Ideas? > > > > The best I can come up with is to code some additional dependencies into > > CacheInvalidateHeapTuple(), and add tracking ensuring we've sent the > > right messages. But that seems somewhat painful and filled with holes. > > > > [1] > > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKoxK%2B5fVodiCtMsXKV_1YAKXbzwSfp7DgDqUmcUAzeAhf%3DHEQ%40mail.gmail.com > > [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/12259.1532117...@sss.pgh.pa.us > > As for [1], it is not a issue on invalidation. It happens also if > the relation has any index and even drop is not needed. The > following steps are sufficient.
Huh? I don't think this is a proper fix. But please let's argue over in the other that in the other thread. Greetings, Andres Freund
