Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> For the specific cases you mention, perhaps it would be all right if we
>> taught plancache.c to blow away *all* cached plans upon seeing any change
>> in pg_operator; but that seems like a brute-force solution.
> Agreed that it is- but is that really a problem...?
Perhaps it isn't; we certainly have assumptions that pg_amop, for
instance, changes seldom enough that it's not worth tracking individual
changes. The same might be true of pg_operator. I'm not sure though.
The core point I'm trying to make is that making pg_operator entries
mutable is something that's going to require very careful review.
regards, tom lane