Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations

Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> One thing I am wondering about around this is: Why are we only
> processing catchup events when DoingCommandRead? There's other paths
> where we can wait for data from the client for a long time. Obviously we
> don't want to process async.c stuff from inside copy, but I don't see
> why that's the case for sinval.c.

It might be all right to do it during copy, but I'd just as soon treat
that as a separate issue.  If you merge it into the basic patch then it
might be hard to get rid of if there are problems.
        regards, tom lane