On 09/25/2017 10:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On 09/25/2017 10:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Oh ... I did not think we were on the same page, because your patch >>> didn't include removal of the same-transaction heuristic. It'd be >>> sensible to do that as a separate patch, though, to make it easier >>> to put back if we decide we do want it. >> I understood you to say that the blacklist patch was all we needed to do >> for v10. That's my position, i.e. I think we can live with the heuristic >> test for now if the blacklist patch is applied. Maybe we need to >> document that the heuristic test can generate some false negatives when >> testing for a type that is created in the current transaction. > No, as I said upthread, I want the heuristic out of there. I think the > blacklist idea covers enough use-cases that we possibly don't need the > same-transaction test at all. Furthermore I'm doubtful that the heuristic > form of the same-transaction test is adequate to satisfy the use-cases > that the blacklist test doesn't cover. So I think we should remove that > test and see whether we get any complaints, and if so what the details of > the real-world use-cases look like. > >
Let's ask a couple of users who I think are or have been actually hurting on this point. Christophe and David, any opinions? cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
