> Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> writes:
> > It's more a "fix-me later" approach, but it does not look that bad, IMHO.
> It seems a bit risky to me. The worst possible consequence of the
> ownership stuff not happening is that objects have wrong ownership (and
> even there it's not so much "wrong" as "we decided we'd like this other
> behavior better").
Well, if the ownership-switch transaction would fail, then I think the
login would also fail and the connection would be broken... No data is
lost because none where put in the database, as it has just been created.
But the system would be blocked anyway.
> But the consequence of not fixing reltablespace is that the database is
If it is simply broken, that is it does not work at all, as it is a newly
created database hency mostly empty database, it is not that bad as no
data is lost. If it is broken but the fact appears much later on, that's
another issue. My intuition is that a failure of such transactions would
just show that there is a big underlying problem, thus having a early-on
failure would be a rather good thing as it would prevent the user to go
on with an instable installation.
> so I'd prefer not to need to.
I cannot see how it could fail under normal condition (i.e. apart disk
full or hardware/os failure), but you're sure a better juge of that than
Fabien Coelho - coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-06-29 14:18:54|
|Subject: Re: INSERT rule |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-06-29 13:43:55|
|Subject: Re: client_min_messages in dumps? |