"Florian G. Pflug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > My basic assumption is that DDL is something quite uncommon on a > production system.
I'm not sure I believe that, because of temp tables. There's also the problem that plain VACUUM (or ANALYZE) causes a relcache flush to update the relation-size statistics. The real problem with the scheme you propose is that it turns a cache flush on one table into a system-wide cache flush. We might be able to do something about the temp-table case upstream: AFAICS there's no reason for backends to broadcast cache flushes for their own temp tables to other backends. But that's just a sketch of a thought at the moment. Anyway, if you believe that DDL is infrequent, why are you resistant to the idea of WAL-logging cache flushes? regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate