Re: TOAST versus VACUUM, or "missing chunk number 0 for toast value" identified
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: TOAST versus VACUUM, or "missing chunk number 0 for toast value" identified |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 201111041729.pA4HTsU21893@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: TOAST versus VACUUM, or "missing chunk number 0 for toast value" identified (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes: > > Excerpts from Alvaro Herrera's message of vie oct 28 16:47:13 -0300 2011: > >> BTW we had previous discussions about dropping pg_database's toast > >> table. Maybe this is a good time to do it, even if there's no risk of > >> this bug (or the hypothetical circularity detoasting problem) showing up > >> there. > > No objection from me. > > > Oh, something unrelated I just remembered: we have > > pg_database.datlastsysoid which seems unused. Perhaps we should remove > > that column for cleanliness. > > I have a vague recollection that some client-side code uses this to > figure out what's the dividing line between user and system OIDs. > pg_dump used to need to know that number, and it can still be useful > with casts and other things that are hard to tell whether they're built-in. > While in principle people could use FirstNormalObjectId instead, that > could come back to bite us if we ever have to increase that constant > in future releases. I'm inclined to leave this one alone. Maybe add a C comment? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: