On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 14:22 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 15:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > So nevermind that distraction. I'm back to thinking that fix1 is
> > the way to go.
> It's uncontroversial to have a simple guard against corrupting an
> uninitialized page, and uncontroversial is good for things that will be
Still don't understand why we would not initialize such pages. If we're
copying a relation we must know enough about it to init a page.
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Matthew Wakeling||Date: 2010-07-29 09:15:14|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Trouble with COPY IN |
|Previous:||From: Jaime Casanova||Date: 2010-07-29 06:56:16|
|Subject: Re: including backend ID in relpath of temp rels - updated patch|