Hi,
Thanks for looking into this.
On 2016-04-26 11:43:06 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > ISTM we should additionally replace the CacheInvalidateSmgr() with a
> > CacheInvalidateRelcache() and document that that implies an smgr
> > invalidation. Alternatively we could log smgr (and relmapper)
> > invalidations as well, but that's not quite non-invasive either; but
> > might be a good long-term idea to keep things simpler.
> >
> > Comments?
>
> Yeah, this looks like a good idea at the end.
You mean the bit about making smgr invalidations logged?
> As the invalidation patch is aimed at being backpatched, this may be
> something to do as well in back-branches.
I'm a bit split here. I think forcing processing of invalidations at
moments they've previously never been processed is a bit risky for the
back branches. But on the other hand relcache invalidations are only
processed at end-of-xact, which isn't really correct for the code at
hand :/
Greetings,
Andres Freund
