On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 16:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
I have'nt looke at the patch either, but I suspect that what goes
through shared mem is the registration for invalidation, as dependent
function OIDs are only learned while compiling functions
so when f_caller() learns that it caches plan f_called() then it
registers through shared mem message its wish to invalidate this plan if
f_called() is dropped or redefined.
--------------
Hannu
