Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> For the specific cases you mention, perhaps it would be all right if we >> taught plancache.c to blow away *all* cached plans upon seeing any change >> in pg_operator; but that seems like a brute-force solution.
> Agreed that it is- but is that really a problem...? Perhaps it isn't; we certainly have assumptions that pg_amop, for instance, changes seldom enough that it's not worth tracking individual changes. The same might be true of pg_operator. I'm not sure though. The core point I'm trying to make is that making pg_operator entries mutable is something that's going to require very careful review. 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