Re: BUG #16577: Segfault on altering a table located in a dropped tablespace
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #16577: Segfault on altering a table located in a dropped tablespace |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3247405.1597085966@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | BUG #16577: Segfault on altering a table located in a dropped tablespace (PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org>) |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 2020-Aug-09, Tom Lane wrote: >> Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes: >>> For a normal table we would complain that the tablespace is not empty >>> when attempting to drop the tablespace. But here we have only one >>> partitioned table still holding references to the tablespace. > Ah, so it turns out that the physical files were necessary after all. > Maybe the solution to this problem is indeed to have them. It means > partly reverting this commit: I think actually the hardest part will be figuring out what is the conversion path, e.g. will pg_upgrade have to know about this. One point that strikes me is that that will put us in a place where "does this relation have storage" is not a binary choice. The possible answers will be "yes", "no", or "has an empty stub file". If we try to take shortcuts rather than handling that honestly, we'll be in for more bugs. > As for the crash at hand, it seems it can be solved easily by making > ruleutils avoid trying to dereference a null pointer, as in the attached > patch. Meh. I have a feeling that that's just the tip of the iceberg of things that will go wrong in this scenario. I'm not sure how much band-aid code we want to expend on the case --- after all, tablespace create/drop is a superuser-only activity, so people aren't doing it carelessly (one hopes). regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: