On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 7:07 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 1:34 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I thought that way because IIUC, when we are locking the database > > tuple we are ensuring that we are calling > > ReceiveSharedInvalidMessages() right? And IIUC > > ReceiveSharedInvalidMessages(), is designed such a way that it will > > consume all the outstanding messages and that's the reason it loops > > multiple times if it identifies that the queue is full. And if my > > assumption here is correct then I think it is also correct that now we > > only need to worry about anyone generating new invalidations and that > > is not possible in this case. > > Well, I don't see how that chain of logic addresses my concern about > sinval reset. > > Mind you, I'm not sure there's an actual problem here, because I tried > testing the patch with debug_discard_caches=1 and nothing failed. But > I still don't understand WHY nothing failed.
Okay, I see what you are saying. Yeah this looks like a problem to me as well. I will try to reproduce this issue. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
