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. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers