"Pavan Deolasee" <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> writes:
> On 4/3/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> If the invalidation were something that *had* to be accounted for,
>> such as a dropped index, then there should be adequate locking for it;
>> plancache is not introducing any new bug that wasn't there before.
>>
> Oh yes, I was wondering about the other parts of the code, not
> plan invalidation. Never mind, it was just a thought.
Well, as that comment notes, we've always had to worry about being sure
that the relcache data structures are up-to-date (or sufficiently
up-to-date, anyway). I think it's reasonably well debugged.
regards, tom lane
