On 2018-05-25 17:47:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > Moving discussion to -hackers. Tom, I think you worked most with this
> > code, your input would be appreciated.
>
> Yeah, the assumption in the relcache is that the only part of a nailed
> catalog's relcache entry that really needs to be updated intrasession is
> the relfilenode mapping.
Paging through the changes to relcache.c and vacuum[lazy].c it looks to
me like that hasn't been true in a long time, right?
> For nailed indexes, we allow updating of some additional fields, and I
> guess what has to happen here is that we teach the code to update some
> additional fields for nailed tables too.
Yea, it seems like we could just get a new version of the pg_class tuple
if in the right state, and memcpy() it into place. Not sure if there's
any other issues...
BTW, and I guess this mostly goes to Alvaro, I don't understand why that
code accepts relation->rd_rel->relkind == RELKIND_PARTITIONED_INDEX?
That seems like something we'll hopefully never support.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
