Re: [GENERAL] pgstattuple triggered checkpoint failure and database outage?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [GENERAL] pgstattuple triggered checkpoint failure and database outage? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9598.1238510154@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [GENERAL] pgstattuple triggered checkpoint failure and database outage? (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [GENERAL] pgstattuple triggered checkpoint failure and database outage?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> I can't remember having seen bugs of this type before. > If we had had this defense in place, it would have been obvious that > reindex and cluster were buggy. The code to skip temp tables was not > there from the beginning. I thought my memory was probably failing me (excuse: no caffeine yet). > (We already have rel->rd_istemp, but it's not what we need here.) Yeah. I was considering converting that into a three-state flag, but it might be simpler to remove it altogether and look to the new pg_class field; only after we've gone down the path into localbuf.c would we check relnamespace == our temp namespace before permitting a read or write. Barring objections, I'll go make that happen. (And fix the contrib bugs too, but not till after ... I'll need a test case ;-)) regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: