| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, dnsl48(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #15631: Generated as identity field in a temporary table with on commit drop corrupts system catalogs |
| Date: | 2019-02-16 04:32:04 |
| Message-ID: | 31505.1550291524@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 05:03:29PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Yeah, I'm OK on that, but that's not really the problem here. This is
>> not a case where a later step in a complex DDL command needs to see what
>> an earlier step did. This is about that something later in the
>> transaction needs to see what happened earlier in the transaction. This
>> does not seem to be the job of each individual DDL command; they don't
>> know what someone later might want to look at. Otherwise many DDL
>> command implementations are lacking this CCI. I think the CCI should be
>> more like at the end of ProcessUtility().
> Not all utility commands need a CCI, for example take VACUUM.
BEGIN and COMMIT are more convincing counterexamples ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-02-16 15:25:03 | Re: BUG #15638: pg_basebackup with --wal-method=stream incorrectly generates WAL segment created during backup |
| Previous Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2019-02-16 00:26:13 | BUG #15638: pg_basebackup with --wal-method=stream incorrectly generates WAL segment created during backup |