On 09/25/2017 10:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> On 09/25/2017 10:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Oh ... I did not think we were on the same page, because your patch
>>> didn't include removal of the same-transaction heuristic. It'd be
>>> sensible to do that as a separate patch, though, to make it easier
>>> to put back if we decide we do want it.
>> I understood you to say that the blacklist patch was all we needed to do
>> for v10. That's my position, i.e. I think we can live with the heuristic
>> test for now if the blacklist patch is applied. Maybe we need to
>> document that the heuristic test can generate some false negatives when
>> testing for a type that is created in the current transaction.
> No, as I said upthread, I want the heuristic out of there. I think the
> blacklist idea covers enough use-cases that we possibly don't need the
> same-transaction test at all. Furthermore I'm doubtful that the heuristic
> form of the same-transaction test is adequate to satisfy the use-cases
> that the blacklist test doesn't cover. So I think we should remove that
> test and see whether we get any complaints, and if so what the details of
> the real-world use-cases look like.
>
>
Let's ask a couple of users who I think are or have been actually
hurting on this point. Christophe and David, any opinions?
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
