Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The actual criterion is not really "new user-visible feature" versus > "bug fix". It's more an attempt at measuring how large a potential > impact the change has. The patch I saw was introducing a whole new > message type to go through the shared invalidation queue, which is not > something to be taken lightly (consider that there are three message > types of messages currently.)
I hadn't read it yet, but that makes it wrong already. There's no need for any new inval traffic --- the existing syscache inval messages on pg_proc entries should serve fine. More generally, if we are to try to invalidate on the strength of pg_proc changes, what of other DDL changes? Operators, operator classes, maybe? How about renaming a schema? I would like to see a line drawn between things we find worth trying to track and things we don't. If there is no such line, we're going to need a patch a lot larger than this one. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers