On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 7:02 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > Maybe expand a bit on this by saying that it's more likely "because > plan_create_index_workers() triggers a relcache entry to be (re-)built, > which previously did only happen in edge cases" or such?
Okay. > Not a fan of this comment. It doesn't really explain that well why it's > needed here, but then goes on to a relatively general explanation of why > cache invalidation is necessary. Why not just go for something like > "register relcache invalidation on the indexes' heap relation, to > maintain consistency of its index list"? That seems much more generic to me! The comment is supposed to convey that the stuff within index_update_stats() isn't enough because of xact abort specifically. SI invalidation is very much part of the index_update_stats() contract already. > I wonder if it wouldn't be more appropriately placed closer to the > UpdateIndexRelation(), given that that's essentially what necessitates > the relcache flush? That makes sense. I'll do it that way. -- Peter Geoghegan
