Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> 2. By chance, a shared-cache-inval flush comes through while it's doing
>> that, causing all non-open, non-nailed relcache entries to be discarded.
>> Including, in particular, the one that is "next" according to the
>> hash_seq_search's status.
> I thought we have catchup interrupts disabled at that point. Where does
> the flush come from?
Actual overrun. Disabling the catchup interrupt certainly can't
improve that.
(Michael's core dump showed that the failed backend was about 7000 SI
messages behind, where the overrun limit is 4K...)
regards, tom lane
