Re: Applying TOAST to CURRENT
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Applying TOAST to CURRENT |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2155.959699225@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Applying TOAST to CURRENT (JanWieck@t-online.de (Jan Wieck)) |
Ответы |
Re: Applying TOAST to CURRENT
Re: Applying TOAST to CURRENT |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
JanWieck@t-online.de (Jan Wieck) writes: >>>> OTOH I don't think it's a good thing to try creating >>>> these things on the fly the first time needed. The >>>> required catalog changes and file creations introduce all >>>> kinds of possible rollback/crash problems, that we don't >>>> want to have here - do we? AFAIK we are pretty solid on rolling back table creation, it's just rename/drop that have problems. A worse problem is what if two backends both decide they need to create the toast table at the same time. That might be fixable with appropriate locking but it seems like there'd be potential for deadlocks. > Bruce Momjian wrote: >> Well, we could print the message suggesing ALTER TABLE when printing >> tuple too large. Frankly, I don't see a problem in creating the backup >> table automatically. If you are worried about performance, how about >> putting it in a subdirectory. I agree with Bruce --- the toast table should be created automatically, at least if the table contains any potentially-toastable columns. We want this to be as transparent as possible. I'd rather have auto create on-the-fly when first needed, but if that seems too risky then let's just make the table when its owning table is created. If you want to control it with an ALTER TABLE function, let's add ALTER TABLE DROP TOAST so that admins who don't like the excess space usage can get rid of it. (Of course that should only succeed after verifying the toast table is empty...) regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: