Tom Lane escribió: > [ forgot to respond to this part ] > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > ... I don't see the problem with DROP. > > Under the proposed design, it's approximately equivalent to dropping a > > table that someone else has truncated. You just wait for the > > necessary lock and then do it. > > And do *what*? You can remove the catalog entries, but how are you > going to make the physical storage of other backends' versions go away? > (To say nothing of making them flush their local buffers for it.)
Maybe we could add a sinval message to that effect. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
