Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>>> In the meantime, I think my vote would be to remove AtEOXact_CatCache.
>>> In all supported branches?
>> Whatever we do about this issue, I don't feel a need to do it further
>> back than HEAD. It's a non-problem except in an assert-enabled build,
>> and we don't recommend running those for production, only development.
> Sure, but people still do testing and development against older
> branches - bug fixes, for example. It doesn't make much sense to me
> to leave code that we know does the wrong thing in the back branches.
Not having heard anyone arguing against that, I'll go make it so,
ie AtEOXact_CatCache is toast in all branches.
regards, tom lane
