Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> I've not yet read the full thread, but I'm a bit confused so far. We
> obviously can get changing information about indexes here, but isn't
> that something we have to deal with anyway? If we guarantee that we
> don't loose knowledge that there's a pending invalidation, why do we
> have to retry?
We don't *have to* retry; the core of the fix is to not enter stale data
into the cache after we've already received an invalidation signal. The
current caller can survive with stale data; or if that's not true, C.I.C.
has got more fundamental problems than posited here. But it seems like a
generally bad idea for relcache to return data that it knows (or at least
has reason to believe) is stale.
Also, even if you're okay with return-stale-data-but-don't-cache-it,
I have little faith that invalidate_indexattr_v3.patch successfully
implements that. Consider the sequence: inval received during
RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap, we clear rd_indexvalid, something asks for
the relation OID list, we recalculate that and set rd_indexvalid, then
we reach the end of RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap and see that rd_indexvalid
is set. If that happened, we'd cache the bitmaps whether or not they were
really up to date. Now admittedly, it's a bit hard to think of a reason
why anything would ask for the index list of anything but a system catalog
in that sequence, so as long as you assume that we don't allow C.I.C. (or
more realistically, REINDEX CONCURRENTLY) on system catalogs, this failure
mode is unreachable. But I much prefer having a positive verification
that the index list is still what it was when we started.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
