Xiaoran Wang <fanfuxiao...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> The detection of "get an invalidation" could be refined: what I did
>>> here is to check for any advance of SharedInvalidMessageCounter,
>>> which clearly will have a significant number of false positives.
> I have reviewed your patch, and it looks good. But instead of checking for
> any advance of SharedInvalidMessageCounter ( if the invalidate message is
> not related to the current tuple, it is a little expensive) I have another
> idea: we can recheck the visibility of the tuple with CatalogSnapshot(the
> CatalogSnapthot must be refreshed if there is any SharedInvalidMessages) if
> it is not visible, we re-fetch the tuple, otherwise, we can continue to use
> it as it is not outdated.
Maybe, but that undocumented hack in SetHintBits seems completely
unacceptable. Isn't there a cleaner way to make this check?
Also, I'm pretty dubious that GetNonHistoricCatalogSnapshot rather
than GetCatalogSnapshot is the right thing, because the catcaches
use the latter.
regards, tom lane
