Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>>> In the meantime, I think my vote would be to remove AtEOXact_CatCache.
>>> In all supported branches? >> Whatever we do about this issue, I don't feel a need to do it further >> back than HEAD. It's a non-problem except in an assert-enabled build, >> and we don't recommend running those for production, only development. > Sure, but people still do testing and development against older > branches - bug fixes, for example. It doesn't make much sense to me > to leave code that we know does the wrong thing in the back branches. Not having heard anyone arguing against that, I'll go make it so, ie AtEOXact_CatCache is toast in all branches. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers