Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 11:24 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> A related issue, now that I've seen this example, is that altering
>> FDW-level or server-level options won't cause a replan either. I'm
>> not sure there's any very good fix for that. Surely we don't want
>> to try to identify all tables belonging to the FDW or server and
>> issue relcache invals on all of them.
> Hm, some kind of PlanInvalItem-based solution could work maybe?
Hm, so we'd expect that whenever an FDW consulted the options while
making a plan, it'd have to record a plan dependency on them? That
would be a clean fix maybe, but I'm worried that third-party FDWs
would fail to get the word about needing to do this.
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
