"Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes:
> If we made the commit sequence number more generally available,
> incrementing it at the point of visibility change under cover of
> ProcArrayLock, and including the then-current value in a Snapshot
> object when built, would that help with this at all?

No, because we need a back-patchable fix.  Even going forward,
I don't find the idea of flushing syscache entries at transaction
end to be especially appealing.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to