On 2023-06-30 Fr 15:08, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
Me either. I think this might call for too much invention so I'm going
to revert to plan A. The invalidation code won't be very much, and it
should be a fairly rare event, so it doesn't need to be very clever.
The problem with rarely-executed code is that it's also hard to test.
Your Plan B in the end proved less difficult than I thought, and certainly seems more robust than having to tangle with invalidations. I didn't try to do anything to wrap the values in a bytea, it didn't seem necessary. Here's a patch - it's not terribly long or invasive. I haven't tried backpatching it yet.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com