At Tue, 11 Jul 2017 15:39:14 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in <6234.1499801954@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes:
> > Horiguchi-san,
> > On 2017/07/11 10:28, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> >> I faintly recall such discussion was held aroud that time and
> >> maybe we concluded that we don't do that but I haven't find such
> >> a thread in pgsql-hackers..
>
> > I mentioned it in my reply. Here again:
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160405.184408.166437663.horiguchi.kyotaro%40lab.ntt.co.jp
>
> The followup discussion noted that that approach was no good because it
> would only close connections in the same session that had done the ALTER
> SERVER. I think the basic idea of marking postgres_fdw connections as
> needing to be remade when next possible is OK, but we have to drive it
> off catcache invalidation events, the same as we did in c52d37c8b. An
> advantage of that way is we don't need any new hooks in the core code.
>
> Kyotaro-san, are you planning to update your old patch?
I'm pleased to do that. I will reconsider the way shown in a mail
in the thread soon.
regards,
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
