>
> That leaves the question of whether it's worth detecting table-level
> option changes this way, or whether we should just handle those by forcing
> a relcache inval in ATExecGenericOptions, as in Amit's original patch in
> <5702298D.4090903@lab.ntt.co.jp>. I kind of like that approach; that
> patch was short and sweet, and it put the cost on the unusual path (ALTER
> TABLE) not the common path (every time we create a query plan).
>
You seemed not sure about this solution per [1]. Do you think we
should add similar cache invalidation when foreign server and FDW
options are modified?
> That leaves not much of this patch :-( though maybe we could salvage some
> of the test cases.
>
If that's the best way, we can add testcases to that patch.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/29681.1459779873@sss.pgh.pa.us
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company