"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> If we made the commit sequence number more generally available,
> incrementing it at the point of visibility change under cover of
> ProcArrayLock, and including the then-current value in a Snapshot
> object when built, would that help with this at all?
No, because we need a back-patchable fix. Even going forward,
I don't find the idea of flushing syscache entries at transaction
end to be especially appealing.
regards, tom lane