Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> Isn't that going to break the assumption that the key is unique within a
> transaction?
Huh? "abc" is "abc", no matter what. At least if Andrew did what
I suggested (I didn't look at the patch yet).
> Separately, will this work correctly with procedures keeping values alive
> across transactions?
That might be an issue. But couldn't we make this cache just live for
the life of the process? It's unlikely to get large.
regards, tom lane
