Re: Remaining beta blockers
От | Stephen Frost |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Remaining beta blockers |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20130430014411.GF4361@tamriel.snowman.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Remaining beta blockers (Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Remaining beta blockers
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
* Kevin Grittner (kgrittn@ymail.com) wrote: > If they modified the heap files that way while the server was > running, the results would be somewhat unpredictable. If they did > it while the server was stopped, starting the server and attempting > to access the matview would generate: Right, the point being that they could (ab)use it as a flag to trigger something to happen. I'd also be worried about failure cases where files appear to be zero-length. > > Or we end up wanting to have that file be non-zero and considered > > 'empty' later, but we don't want pg_upgrade running around > > touching all of the existing files out there? > > I didn't follow this one; could you restate it, please? Down the road we decide that we shouldn't have any zero-length files (perhaps due to checksums..?), yet we have to special case around these mat views and figure out a way to deal with them during pg_upgrade. Thanks, Stephen
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: