Hi, Thanks for looking into this.
On 2016-04-26 11:43:06 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > ISTM we should additionally replace the CacheInvalidateSmgr() with a > > CacheInvalidateRelcache() and document that that implies an smgr > > invalidation. Alternatively we could log smgr (and relmapper) > > invalidations as well, but that's not quite non-invasive either; but > > might be a good long-term idea to keep things simpler. > > > > Comments? > > Yeah, this looks like a good idea at the end. You mean the bit about making smgr invalidations logged? > As the invalidation patch is aimed at being backpatched, this may be > something to do as well in back-branches. I'm a bit split here. I think forcing processing of invalidations at moments they've previously never been processed is a bit risky for the back branches. But on the other hand relcache invalidations are only processed at end-of-xact, which isn't really correct for the code at hand :/ Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
