On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Hm. Looking at how this is currently used - I am afraid it's not
> correct... the reason RelationGetIndexList() returns a copy is that
> cache invalidations will throw away that list. And you do index_open()
> while iterating over it which will accept invalidation messages.
> Mybe it's better to try using RelationGetIndexList directly and measure
> whether that has a measurable impact=
By looking at the comments of RelationGetIndexList:relcache.c,
actually the method of the patch is correct because in the event of a
shared cache invalidation, rd_indexvalid is set to 0 when the index
list is reset, so the index list would get recomputed even in the case
of shared mem invalidation.
--
Michael
