Re: [PROPOSAL] Shared Ispell dictionaries - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Shared Ispell dictionaries
Date
Msg-id 27788.1526566736@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PROPOSAL] Shared Ispell dictionaries  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [PROPOSAL] Shared Ispell dictionaries  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: [PROPOSAL] Shared Ispell dictionaries  (Arthur Zakirov <a.zakirov@postgrespro.ru>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> ... Assuming that we can
> convince ourselves that that much is OK, I don't see why using a
> syscache callback to help ensure that the mappings are blown away in
> an at-least-somewhat-timely fashion is worse than any other approach.

I think the point you've not addressed is that "syscache callback
occurred" does not equate to "object was dropped".  Can the code
survive having this occur at any invalidation point?
(CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS testing would soon expose any fallacy there.)

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Incorrect comment in get_partition_dispatch_recurse
Next
From: Ashutosh Bapat
Date:
Subject: Re: Expression errors with "FOR UPDATE" and postgres_fdw withpartition wise join enabled.