Re: Regression caused by recent change to initdb?
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Regression caused by recent change to initdb? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 24451.1452091825@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Regression caused by recent change to initdb? (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Regression caused by recent change to initdb?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes:
> On 2016/01/06 17:32, Amit Langote wrote:
>> I stumbled upon a possibly strange behavior which may be related to recent
>> initdb changes. For a freshly initdb'd cluster, the following looks fishy:
>> ...
>> These seem to be leftovers of activities of initdb.c's setup_description()
>> and setup_collaction().
> I noticed these leftovers are not present in template1.
Ah, right: they get deleted from template1 correctly when the
initdb-driven session shuts down. But because of the merger into a single
session, they're still there at the instant that we clone template1 into
template0 and postgres databases, and there is nothing to remove them from
there.
The minimum-change way to deal with it would be to explicitly DROP those
tables when we're done with them.
A possibly slightly less fragile answer is to run two sessions, the
second of which *only* processes the DB copying steps.
Neither of these answers seems all that clean to me...
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: