On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 1:34 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought that way because IIUC, when we are locking the database
> tuple we are ensuring that we are calling
> ReceiveSharedInvalidMessages() right? And IIUC
> ReceiveSharedInvalidMessages(), is designed such a way that it will
> consume all the outstanding messages and that's the reason it loops
> multiple times if it identifies that the queue is full. And if my
> assumption here is correct then I think it is also correct that now we
> only need to worry about anyone generating new invalidations and that
> is not possible in this case.
Well, I don't see how that chain of logic addresses my concern about
sinval reset.
Mind you, I'm not sure there's an actual problem here, because I tried
testing the patch with debug_discard_caches=1 and nothing failed. But
I still don't understand WHY nothing failed.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
