pgsql: Add C comment about why we send cache invalidation messages for

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:

Add C comment about why we send cache invalidation messages for
session-local objects.

This comment seems inaccurate and bizarrely placed. What question
were you trying to answer?

regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:

Add C comment about why we send cache invalidation messages for
session-local objects.

This comment seems inaccurate and bizarrely placed. What question
were you trying to answer?

It was in response to my email where I asked why we are sending cache
invalidation messages for temporary tables that can't be seen by any
other backends:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-03/msg00844.php

i.e. why are we generating unnecessary invalidation traffic. Is there a
better place for the comment?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:

Tom Lane wrote:

This comment seems inaccurate and bizarrely placed. What question
were you trying to answer?

It was in response to my email where I asked why we are sending cache
invalidation messages for temporary tables that can't be seen by any
other backends:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-03/msg00844.php

Oh. OK, I cleaned it up a bit.

regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:

Tom Lane wrote:

This comment seems inaccurate and bizarrely placed. What question
were you trying to answer?

It was in response to my email where I asked why we are sending cache
invalidation messages for temporary tables that can't be seen by any
other backends:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-03/msg00844.php

Oh. OK, I cleaned it up a bit.

Thanks. Good to have it documented.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +