On 2015-07-21 14:07:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Paul Ramsey <pram...@cleverelephant.ca> writes: > > Folks are going to be OK w/ me dropping in new syscache entries so support > > my niche little feature? > > No, mainly because it adds overhead without fixing your problem.
Meh. pg_extension updates are exceedingly rare, and there's a bunch of code in extension.c that could very well have used a syscache instead of doing manual scans over the table. > It's not correct to suppose that a syscache on pg_extension would > reliably report anything; consider ALTER EXTENSION ADD/DROP, which > does not touch the pg_extension row. I'd have just brute-force solved that by forcing a cache inval in that case. But I'm not going to complain too loudly if we don't do invalidation. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
