On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 12:43:54PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 11:49 AM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
> > I suppose it's like Bruce said, here.
> >
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210601140949.GC22012%40momjian.us
>
> Well, I feel dumb. I remember reading that email back when Bruce sent
> it, but it seems that it slipped out of my head between then and when
> I committed. I think your patch is fine, except that I think maybe we
My patch also leaves a 0 byte file around from initdb, which is harmless, but
dirty.
I've seen before where a bunch of 0 byte files are abandoned in an
otherwise-empty tablespace, with no associated relation, and I have to "rm"
them to be able to drop the tablespace. Maybe that's a known issue, maybe it's
due to crashes or other edge case, maybe it's of no consequence, and maybe it's
already been fixed or being fixed already. But it'd be nice to avoid another
way to have a 0 byte files - especially ones named with system OIDs.
> Listing the exact properties preserved seems less important to me than
> mentioning that the second UPDATE statement is for its index --
+1
--
Justin