Re: unexpected chunk number 2 (expected 0) for toast value ... inpg_toast_18536

Hi,

On 2020-03-16 12:44:53 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2020-03-15 20:11:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Unfortunately, it seems like you can't do that either, short of
> > hacking up the backend or writing some custom C code, because the
> > executor won't let you open a toast table as result relation :-(.
> > I wonder if we should change it to allow that when
> > allow_system_table_mods is true?  This isn't the first time we've
> > seen people need to be able to do surgery on a toast table.
> 
> I'd be mildly in favor. But it's considerably more than just the
> executor check that'd need to change. We don't the right thing for toast
> relations in plenty places right now, because we just check for
> RELKIND_RELATION - which will break junkvars etc.

Hm, and I wonder if there could be problems with
HeapTupleSatisfiesToast() too? It doesn't really forsee much DML being
done.

Greetings,

Andres Freund