Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL 7.0 a success
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL 7.0 a success |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 21264.959230444@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL 7.0 a success (Denis Perchine <dyp@perchine.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL 7.0 a success
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Denis Perchine <dyp@perchine.com> writes: >> example? some way to recreate for debugging? > 1. When you have created temp table and just killed frontend. Backend > realize that connection is broken and somehow did not remove the table > from pg_class. Then it will exists on the disk and in pg_class. Hmm. I said to myself "no way", and did "create temp table foo ..." followed by killing psql from another window. By golly, the pg_temp file was still there, and it was still listed in pg_class, just as you said. But then I haven't been able to repeat it in quite a few tries. So there's a bug there, but it's not too easy to reproduce. Do you have any idea what contributing conditions might be involved? > 2. When you do operations with large objects (they are treated as > relations also) and you do rollback or again connect broken. Or you do > lots of lo_unlink and rollback or just broke connection. lo_unlink is not safe to rollback, any more than a plain drop table is. This is a known deficiency and probably will be for a while. In the meantime the standard advice is "don't do that". regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: