Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4444.957497548@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt? (The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt?
Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt? RE: pg_group_name_index corrupt? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes: >> I griped about that a week or so ago, but no one seems to have picked up >> on it. Do you want to consider that a "must fix" problem as well? >> I think it's a pretty minor fix, but considering how late we are in the >> cycle... > considering where the problem is, I think that if it can be safely done, > please do it ... Done and done. I also realized that pg_upgrade had another nasty bug in it: the VACUUMs were not necessarily executed as superuser, but as whichever user happened to own the item dumped last by pg_dump in each database. That would result in VACUUM skipping over tables it thought it didn't have permission to vacuum --- like, say, all the system tables. Perhaps this explains the failures that some people have reported. Another day, another bug swatted ... regards, tom lane PS: when you announce RC5, don't forget to mention the required initdb ;-)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: