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