On 2015-07-21 14:07:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Paul Ramsey <pramsey@cleverelephant.ca> writes:
> > Folks are going to be OK w/ me dropping in new syscache entries so support my niche little feature?
>
> No, mainly because it adds overhead without fixing your problem.
Meh. pg_extension updates are exceedingly rare, and there's a bunch of
code in extension.c that could very well have used a syscache instead of
doing manual scans over the table.
> It's not correct to suppose that a syscache on pg_extension would
> reliably report anything; consider ALTER EXTENSION ADD/DROP, which
> does not touch the pg_extension row.
I'd have just brute-force solved that by forcing a cache inval in that
case.
But I'm not going to complain too loudly if we don't do invalidation.
Andres
