On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 16:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
Or maybe a simpler and smaller patch - just invalidate everything on every schema change :) It will have a momentary impact on performance at DDL time, but otherways might be more robust and easier to check for errors. ------------- Hannu -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
