Re: TOAST versus VACUUM, or "missing chunk number 0 for toast value" identified

"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
> If we made the commit sequence number more generally available,
> incrementing it at the point of visibility change under cover of
> ProcArrayLock, and including the then-current value in a Snapshot
> object when built, would that help with this at all?

No, because we need a back-patchable fix.  Even going forward,
I don't find the idea of flushing syscache entries at transaction
end to be especially appealing.
        regards, tom lane