On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > Sounds fine for now. I suspect the better change would be to make > AcceptInvalidationMessages() unconditional in LockRelationOid() and friends. > There's no reason to desire recent ACLs only when opening by name.
I agree, on both counts. I think I failed to realize when doing that refactoring that I was reducing the number of cases where AcceptInvalidationMessages() would actually be called. AFAICS, the only reason why we have such complicated rules for calling that function is that it's traditionally been expensive. But that should be much less true due now due to improvements in 9.2 (cf commit b4fbe392f8ff6ff1a66b488eb7197eef9e1770a4). So we can probably afford to be a little less byzantine about the way we do this now. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
