On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 7:07 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
Okay, I see what you are saying. Yeah this looks like a problem to me
as well. I will try to reproduce this issue.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com