On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> I assume we'll have to backpatch this issue, so I think it'd probably a
> good idea to put a specific CacheInvalidateHeapTuple() in there
> explicitly in the back branches, and do the larger fix in 12. ISTM
> there's some risks that it'd cause issues.
What do you think of the attached?
The is a new CacheInvalidateRelcache() call, rather than a new call to
CacheInvalidateRelcacheByTuple(), but those two things are equivalent
(I assume that you actually meant to say
CacheInvalidateRelcacheByTuple(), not CacheInvalidateHeapTuple()).
Since nobody seems to be that excited about the
CacheInvalidateHeapTuple() idea, I haven't pursued it.
--
Peter Geoghegan
