Re: clearing opfuncid vs. parallel query

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2015-09-23 17:29:50 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Well, I can't vouch for what any human being on earth has thought
>> about over a twenty-year period. It's not intrinsically unreasonable
>> in my mind to want to alter an operator to point at a different
>> procedure.

> Wouldn't we use plan invalidation to deal with that anyway?

Plan invalidation wouldn't help, because the obsolete data exists
on-disk in stored rules. You'd have to run through the pg_rewrite
entries and update them.

To my mind though, the lack of an ALTER OPERATOR SET FUNCTION command
is on par with our very limited ability to alter the contents of
an operator class. In principle it would be nice, but the practical
value is so small that it's not surprising it hasn't been done ---
and we shouldn't continue to hold the door open for a simple way of
implementing it when there are significant costs to doing so.

regards, tom lane