Andrew Dunstan <andrew.duns...@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.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
