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?
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
