Re: missing toast table for pg_policy

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: John Naylor <jcnaylor(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: missing toast table for pg_policy
Date: 2018-07-19 22:59:33
Message-ID: 20180719225933.tniix3m7wpbh3ipp@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2018-07-20 07:49:11 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 01:02:35PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > So, I have been playing with the previous patch and tortured it through
> > a couple of upgrade scenarios, where it proves to work. Attached is an
> > updated patch which adds toast tables except for pg_class, pg_attribute,
> > pg_index and pg_largeobject* with a proposal of commit message. Any
> > objections for the commit of this stuff?
>
> Committed.

FWIW, I was off the last few days. I personally think the reasoning to
leave out pg_class, pg_index etc. is bad. We should just make them work
and create toast tables as well. It's definitely not right that "those
relations have no reason to use a toast table anyway." as the commit
message states, given relacl, reloptions and relpartbound.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeremy Schneider 2018-07-19 23:17:44 Fwd: BUG #15182: Canceling authentication due to timeout aka Denial of Service Attack
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2018-07-19 22:50:25 Re: pread() and pwrite()