Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Assertion failure with small block sizes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "PostgreSQL-development Hackers" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Assertion failure with small block sizes
Date: 2007-10-16 03:58:59
Message-ID: 3061.1192507139@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Hmm.  I'm inclined to reverse the tests (there are 3 not just 1) in
>> heapam.c, so that it explicitly tries to toast only in plain tables,
>> rather than adding more exclusion cases.  Thoughts?

> Well RELKIND_UNCATALOGED can be usefully toasted in that data can be
> compressed internally.

But by the time we are inserting any data that needs compression, the
relkind should not be that anymore.  This would only be an issue if
pg_proc.h itself contained DATA() lines long enough to need toasting.
I argue that that isn't true and isn't likely to become true.  (See
ts_debug() for an example of deliberately avoiding such a case...)

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: ITAGAKI TakahiroDate: 2007-10-16 04:04:28
Subject: V3 protocol is slower than V2
Previous:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2007-10-16 03:38:09
Subject: Re: Assertion failure with small block sizes

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group