Re: including backend ID in relpath of temp rels - updated patch

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> [ BackendRelFileNode patch ]

One thing that I find rather distressing about this is the 25% bloat
in sizeof(SharedInvalidationMessage).  Couldn't we avoid that?  Is it
really necessary to *ever* send an SI message for a backend-local rel?

I agree that one needs to send relcache inval sometimes for temp rels,
but I don't see why each backend couldn't interpret that as a flush
on its own local version.
        regards, tom lane