Re: DropRelFileNodeBuffers API change (was Re: [BUGS] BUG #5599: Vacuum fails due to index corruption issues)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Greg Stark
Тема Re: DropRelFileNodeBuffers API change (was Re: [BUGS] BUG #5599: Vacuum fails due to index corruption issues)
Дата
Msg-id AANLkTinQbJWb9=seuPpBf_oBAQDq_OiZhYUC6Rn8KdAd@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: DropRelFileNodeBuffers API change (was Re: [BUGS] BUG #5599: Vacuum fails due to index corruption issues)  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>)
Ответы Re: DropRelFileNodeBuffers API change (was Re: [BUGS] BUG #5599: Vacuum fails due to index corruption issues)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения 
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On 15/08/10 21:58, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone have an opinion whether it's likely that any third-party
>> code is calling DropRelFileNodeBuffers directly?
>
> I doubt it. External modules shouldn't be modifying relations at such a low
> level.

Really? What about an index access method?


-- 
greg

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: DropRelFileNodeBuffers API change (was Re: [BUGS] BUG #5599: Vacuum fails due to index corruption issues)
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Inconsistent ::bit(N) and get_bit()?