| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Paul Ramsey <pramsey(at)cleverelephant(dot)ca>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support |
| Date: | 2015-07-21 18:27:04 |
| Message-ID: | 20150721182704.GF13636@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-07-21 14:07:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Paul Ramsey <pramsey(at)cleverelephant(dot)ca> writes:
> > Folks are going to be OK w/ me dropping in new syscache entries so support my niche little feature?
>
> No, mainly because it adds overhead without fixing your problem.
Meh. pg_extension updates are exceedingly rare, and there's a bunch of
code in extension.c that could very well have used a syscache instead of
doing manual scans over the table.
> It's not correct to suppose that a syscache on pg_extension would
> reliably report anything; consider ALTER EXTENSION ADD/DROP, which
> does not touch the pg_extension row.
I'd have just brute-force solved that by forcing a cache inval in that
case.
But I'm not going to complain too loudly if we don't do invalidation.
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Paul Ramsey | 2015-07-21 18:29:25 | Re: [PATCH] postgres_fdw extension support |
| Previous Message | Todd A. Cook | 2015-07-21 18:24:47 | Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3? |