"Qingqing Zhou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> You'd need two essentially equivalent versions of SearchSysCache, and
>> you'd lose the ability to make the error message identify what was being
>> searched for, so I vote no.
> Both arguments are not necessaril
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> You'd need two essentially equivalent versions of SearchSysCache, and
> you'd lose the ability to make the error message identify what was being
> searched for, so I vote no.
>
Both arguments are not necessarily true. This change is quite like what we
made
"Qingqing Zhou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There are roughly 420 calls of SearchSysCache() and 217 of which are just
> report "cache lookup failed". Shall we put the elog in the SearchSysCache
> itself?
You'd need two essentially equivalent versions of SearchSysCache, and
you'd lose the ability
There are roughly 420 calls of SearchSysCache() and 217 of which are just
report "cache lookup failed". Shall we put the elog in the SearchSysCache
itself?
Notice that most search is on the "Oid" field -- which is *not* user
visible, so I think most of them can safely let SearchSysCache handle the
