On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 04:54:08AM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Sat, Apr 12, 2025 at 12:43 AM Alexander Korotkov <aekorot...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 11:32 PM Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 08:33:24PM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 6:10 PM Pavel Borisov <pashkin.e...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 at 11:34, Alexander Korotkov > > > > > <aekorot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> I'm going to push this if no objections. > > > > > > (This became commit b85a9d0.) > > > > > > > + /* Call delete_rel_type_cache() if we actually cleared something > > > > */ > > > > + if (hadTupDescOrOpclass) > > > > + delete_rel_type_cache_if_needed(typentry); > > > > > > I think the intent was to maintain the invariant that a > > > RelIdToTypeIdCacheHash > > > entry exists if and only if certain kinds of data appear in the > > > TypeCacheHash > > > entry. However, TypeCacheOpcCallback() clears TCFLAGS_OPERATOR_FLAGS > > > without > > > maintaining RelIdToTypeIdCacheHash. Is it right to do that?
> Sorry for the delay. Generally, your finding is correct. But, I > didn't manage to reproduce the situation, where existing code leads to > real error. In order to have it, we must have typcache entry without > TCFLAGS_HAVE_PG_TYPE_DATA and tupDesc, but with some of > TCFLAGS_OPERATOR_FLAGS. That makes sense. > Reseting TCFLAGS_HAVE_PG_TYPE_DATA for a > composite type doesn't seem to be possible without resetting the rest > at the same time. > > Nevertheless, I think it would be fragile to leave the current code > "as is". If even there is no case of real error (or it's just me > didn't manage to find it), it could appear after further changes of > type cache code. So, the fix is attached. This change looks appropriate. Thanks.
