Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dV11R-0001dW-A3 for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 19:40:37 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dV11Q-0006lE-5B for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 19:40:36 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dV10h-0005Oj-Tl for pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 19:39:51 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dV10a-00016M-70 for pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 19:39:51 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v6BJdE6T006235; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 15:39:14 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Amit Langote cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI , fcs1@poczta.onet.pl, pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #14738: ALTER SERVER for foregin servers not working In-reply-to: References: <20170710113917.7727.10247@wrigleys.postgresql.org> <1838.1499703533@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20170711.102840.130532041.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> Comments: In-reply-to Amit Langote message dated "Tue, 11 Jul 2017 10:38:00 +0900" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <6233.1499801954.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 15:39:14 -0400 Message-ID: <6234.1499801954@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-bugs Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-bugs-owner@postgresql.org Amit Langote writes: > Horiguchi-san, > On 2017/07/11 10:28, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: >> I faintly recall such discussion was held aroud that time and >> maybe we concluded that we don't do that but I haven't find such >> a thread in pgsql-hackers.. > I mentioned it in my reply. Here again: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160405.184408.166437663.horiguchi= .kyotaro%40lab.ntt.co.jp The followup discussion noted that that approach was no good because it would only close connections in the same session that had done the ALTER SERVER. I think the basic idea of marking postgres_fdw connections as needing to be remade when next possible is OK, but we have to drive it off catcache invalidation events, the same as we did in c52d37c8b. An advantage of that way is we don't need any new hooks in the core code. Kyotaro-san, are you planning to update your old patch? regards, tom lane --=20 Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs