From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
        Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>,
        Ronan Dunklau <ronan.dunklau@aiven.io>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Failures in constraints regression test,
 "read only 0 of 8192 bytes"
In-reply-to: <680fafbe-3422-457d-95c2-90f9aa9ac592@iki.fi>
References: 
 <CA+hUKGK+5DOmLaBp3Z7C4S-Yv6yoROvr1UncjH2S1ZbPT8D+Zg@mail.gmail.com>
 <e4f94648-4236-4358-b64c-6a935e33658d@enterprisedb.com>
 <2185821.Icojqenx9y@aivenlaptop>
 <5c5a0015-723a-4fa7-85d5-2f0f47b92094@enterprisedb.com>
 <CA+hUKGJvFgkEgbKyPZj4CwjN9=A+ggio3_2xdwnK0Gd8RzAYuw@mail.gmail.com>
 <deefcee6-c8bb-40ed-a4e5-6c20648cf043@enterprisedb.com>
 <61ef0b89-1ec6-4d88-afbd-2ffc2c977511@enterprisedb.com>
 <CA+hUKGKKQJRap2M5EE7XoQRn5-O0h1=p0wkpkGog=87me-g6+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <05fd672f-2eac-4758-91e9-fa7afafa147e@enterprisedb.com>
 <CA+hUKGKdOS9xccxast-L-MLN3=yA0TYpm=cRhpo_FCq6+O-jQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+hUKG+XOrCi3UwiK5dNL_B8Eav6hMk334L4Qpctfw4MPDUYaw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+hUKGL0dBL-+0_GoN9H_9s0Fx3iOQu28D7Y5o=W0QyP2+s8iQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <de4070e3-d468-4284-a778-8b8025db41f1@iki.fi>
 <50ebc494-0d52-4b76-bea4-f7ab5569300a@iki.fi>
 <CA+hUKGJU1hb2jZQWEDniUEU2E1sz_8gUhccg7+Uj0kzBeSCPJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <e9847a44-8f69-483f-92dc-5a2ca0a8be59@iki.fi>
 <987b1c8c-8c91-4847-ca0e-879f421680ff@gmail!
 .com> <680fafbe-3422-457d-95c2-90f9aa9ac592@iki.fi>
Comments: In-reply-to Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
	message dated "Fri, 21 Jun 2024 01:52:37 +0300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <487326.1718925142.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 19:12:22 -0400
Message-ID: <487327.1718925142@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/487327.1718925142%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> writes:
> In commit af0e7deb4a, I removed the call to RelationCloseSmgr() from 
> RelationCacheInvalidate(). I thought it was no longer needed, because we 
> no longer free the underlying SmgrRelation.

> However, it meant that if the relfilenode of the relation was changed, 
> the relation keeps pointing to the SMgrRelation of the old relfilenode. 
> So we still need the RelationCloseSmgr() call, in case the relfilenode 
> has changed.

Ouch.  How come we did not see this immediately in testing?  I'd have
thought surely such a bug would be exposed by any command that
rewrites a heap.

			regards, tom lane