On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 16:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > The actual criterion is not really "new user-visible feature" versus
> > "bug fix". It's more an attempt at measuring how large a potential
> > impact the change has. The patch I saw was introducing a whole new
> > message type to go through the shared invalidation queue, which is not
> > something to be taken lightly (consider that there are three message
> > types of messages currently.)
>
> I hadn't read it yet, but that makes it wrong already. There's no need
> for any new inval traffic --- the existing syscache inval messages on
> pg_proc entries should serve fine.
>
> More generally, if we are to try to invalidate on the strength of
> pg_proc changes, what of other DDL changes? Operators, operator
> classes, maybe? How about renaming a schema? I would like to see a
> line drawn between things we find worth trying to track and things we
> don't. If there is no such line, we're going to need a patch a lot
> larger than this one.
Or maybe a simpler and smaller patch - just invalidate everything on
every schema change :)
It will have a momentary impact on performance at DDL time, but
otherways might be more robust and easier to check for errors.
-------------
Hannu