Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> FWIW I'm not suggesting you go and implement #1 or #2 for me, that'd be
> up to me I guess. But I disagree there's no use case for it, and #3
> makes this featuer useless for me.
OK, then we need to do something else. Do you have ideas for other
alternatives?
If not, we probably should bite the bullet and go for #1, since
I have little doubt that we'll need that someday anyway.
The trick will be to keep down the cache invalidation overhead...
regards, tom lane