Re: [HACKERS] temp table oddness?u

> OK, I think that set of issues is solved. All the temp-table examples
> Tatsuo and I gave this morning work with the current sources, and I
> think shared invalidation of relcache entries is pretty solid too.
>
> What we have at this point is a set of tightly interwoven changes in
> relcache.c, temprel.c, sinval.c, and the syscache stuff. If we want to
> commit these changes into 6.5.*, it's all-or-nothing; I don't think we
> can extract just part of the changes. I'm real hesitant to do that.
> These are good fixes, I believe, but I don't yet trust 'em enough to put
> into a stable release. Can we live with the temp table misbehaviors as
> "known bugs" for 6.5.* ?

I have already cast my vote for leaving them out of 6.5.*.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026