Re: should ConstraintRelationId ins/upd cause relcache invals? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: should ConstraintRelationId ins/upd cause relcache invals?
Date
Msg-id 20463.1548101297@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to should ConstraintRelationId ins/upd cause relcache invals?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: should ConstraintRelationId ins/upd cause relcache invals?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> While working on bugfixes for FK problems in partitioned tables, I came
> across some behavior that appears to stem from our inclusion of foreign
> keys in relcache, without sufficient care for invalidating the relcache
> entries when the foreign key set for the table changes.  (Namely, a
> partition retains its relcache entry with no FKs when an FK is added to
> the parent table, leading a DELETE to skip running action triggers).

Ooops.

> At https://postgr.es/m/201901182216.nr5clsxrn624@alvherre.pgsql I posted
> a simplistic for the specific problem I found by calling
> CacheInvalidateRelcache in the problem spot.  But I'm wondering if the
> correct fix isn't to have CacheInvalidateHeapTuple deal with FK
> pg_constraint tuples instead, per the attached patch.

+1, this is safer than expecting retail relcache inval calls to be
added in all the right places.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Thread-unsafe coding in ecpg
Next
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: Thread-unsafe coding in ecpg