Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> 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
