Re: [HACKERS] temp table oddness?

OK, I think that set of issues is solved.  All the temp-table examples
Tatsuo and I gave this morning work with the current sources, and I
think shared invalidation of relcache entries is pretty solid too.

What we have at this point is a set of tightly interwoven changes in
relcache.c, temprel.c, sinval.c, and the syscache stuff.  If we want to
commit these changes into 6.5.*, it's all-or-nothing; I don't think we
can extract just part of the changes.  I'm real hesitant to do that.
These are good fixes, I believe, but I don't yet trust 'em enough to put
into a stable release.  Can we live with the temp table misbehaviors as
"known bugs" for 6.5.* ?

The other thing we'd have to do if we don't back-patch these changes
is remove the FileUnlink call in mdtruncate() in REL6_5, which would
mean vacuum still won't remove excess segment files in 6.5.*.  It would
truncate 'em to zero length, though, so the deficiency isn't horrible
AFAICS.

My inclination is to do that, and leave the other problems as unfixed
bugs for REL6_5.  The alternative would be to back-patch all these
changes and delay 6.5.2 release for a while while people beta-test.
Comments?
        regards, tom lane