Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qG54D-0006zq-Kz for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 02 Jul 2023 21:57:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qG54C-0000i2-Bl for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 02 Jul 2023 21:57:12 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qG54C-0000ht-3O for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 02 Jul 2023 21:57:12 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1qG549-001pWj-LH for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 02 Jul 2023 21:57:11 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 362Lv3jt213082; Sun, 2 Jul 2023 17:57:03 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Andres Freund cc: Andrew Dunstan , exclusion@gmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #17994: Invalidating relcache corrupts tupDesc inside ExecEvalFieldStoreDeForm() In-reply-to: <20230702215420.mal2kg5a4kasme5j@awork3.anarazel.de> References: <1583514.1688066735@sss.pgh.pa.us> <326723ee-ee05-35bf-06fd-e4f3afc61654@dunslane.net> <1610276.1688078516@sss.pgh.pa.us> <5316ba5d-ab3b-4ae2-6f6b-f22760932d99@dunslane.net> <1742513.1688129204@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1749275.1688132604@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1800418.1688152085@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3878b204-e9b4-6e09-9adb-7a37b8db34a6@dunslane.net> <20230702215420.mal2kg5a4kasme5j@awork3.anarazel.de> Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund message dated "Sun, 02 Jul 2023 14:54:20 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <213080.1688335023.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2023 17:57:03 -0400 Message-ID: <213081.1688335023@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Andres Freund writes: > Isn't that going to break the assumption that the key is unique within a > transaction? Huh? "abc" is "abc", no matter what. At least if Andrew did what I suggested (I didn't look at the patch yet). > Separately, will this work correctly with procedures keeping values alive > across transactions? That might be an issue. But couldn't we make this cache just live for the life of the process? It's unlikely to get large. regards, tom lane