On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 16:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The actual criterion is not really "new user-visible feature" versus > > "bug fix". It's more an attempt at measuring how large a potential > > impact the change has. The patch I saw was introducing a whole new > > message type to go through the shared invalidation queue, which is not > > something to be taken lightly (consider that there are three message > > types of messages currently.) > > I hadn't read it yet, but that makes it wrong already. There's no need > for any new inval traffic --- the existing syscache inval messages on > pg_proc entries should serve fine.
I have'nt looke at the patch either, but I suspect that what goes through shared mem is the registration for invalidation, as dependent function OIDs are only learned while compiling functions so when f_caller() learns that it caches plan f_called() then it registers through shared mem message its wish to invalidate this plan if f_called() is dropped or redefined. -------------- Hannu -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
