On 05/03/2021 00:02, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm starting a new thread for this patch that originated as a
> side-discussion in [1], to give it its own CF entry in the next cycle.
> This is a WIP with an open question to research: what could actually
> break if we did this?
I don't see a problem.
It would indeed be nice to have some other mechanism to prevent the
issue with wal_level=minimal, the tombstone files feel hacky and
complicated. Maybe a new shared memory hash table to track the
relfilenodes of dropped tables.
- Heikki
