Re: [GENERAL] pgstattuple triggered checkpoint failure and database outage?
| От | Alvaro Herrera |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [GENERAL] pgstattuple triggered checkpoint failure and database outage? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 20090331142620.GQ23023@alvh.no-ip.org обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [GENERAL] pgstattuple triggered checkpoint failure and database outage? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [GENERAL] pgstattuple triggered checkpoint failure and database outage?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > The solution that seems most practical to me is to add a bool column > to pg_class indicating "this is a temp table". Then, if that flag > is set but it's not our own temp table (which we can tell easily), > refuse to read. However, a patch of that size would take a little > while to develop, and I'm not entirely sure it's worth the trouble. > 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. (We already have rel->rd_istemp, but it's not what we need here.) -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: