Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2019-04-25 02:59, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Is there something else you are considering for this patch? This
>> previous suggestion looks fine to live with, at least for me. Tom,
>> perhaps you have some extra input on the matter and would prefer a
>> more restrictive location for the CCI?
> I didn't find that solution very principled either. I now think the
> best fix is to have a CCI at the end of standard_ProcessUtility(). It's
> very possible that other commands could also create catalog entries that
> some on-commit action would like to see. It wouldn't be sensible to
> chase down each command separately.
Seems reasonable to me. Do we have a concrete patch with that?
The minor-release deadline is getting closer ...
regards, tom lane
