On 2016-04-27 11:59:39 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Masahiko Sawada posted a patch that fixes the problem for him, which
> does not involve any new WAL record type.  It also seems to be fixing
> the problem in a way that is clean and consistent with what we've done
> elsewhere.

It only fixes one symptom, the relcache entry is still wrong
afterwards. Which is pretty relevant for planning.

> The patch actually under discussion here manages to introduce a new
> WAL record type without fixing that problem.

It does fix the problem, just not in a super robust way. Which is why I
think we should add something like Masahiko's fix additionally.


Andres Freund

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

Reply via email to