From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_control is missing a field for LOBLKSIZE |
Date: | 2014-06-04 14:43:32 |
Message-ID: | 20140604144332.GC2556@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > * Andrew Dunstan (andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net) wrote:
> >> On 06/04/2014 10:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> I just chanced to notice that if someone were to change the value for
> >>> LOBLKSIZE and recompile, there'd be nothing to stop him from starting
> >>> that postmaster against an existing database, even though it would
> >>> completely misinterpret and mangle any data in pg_largeobject.
>
> > Then again, I've never heard of a field complaint regarding this, so
> > pehraps it's not worth it.
>
> I've not heard one either, but there was just somebody asking in
> pgsql-general about changing LOBLKSIZE, so he's going to be at risk.
> That's not a big enough sample size to make me panic about getting a
> hasty fix into 9.4, but I do think we should fix this going forward.
Agreed.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexey Klyukin | 2014-06-04 14:59:10 | Could not open file pg_multixact/offsets/ ERROR on 9.3.4 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-06-04 14:42:57 | Re: pg_control is missing a field for LOBLKSIZE |