| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | dhyan(at)nataraj(dot)su, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pageinspect: add tuple_data_record() |
| Date: | 2018-10-17 17:05:36 |
| Message-ID: | 20181017170536.nedsjesikwpv4bki@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-10-17 13:04:33 -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> Indeed. But I do think your approach - which means that the binary data is
> > actually interpreded as a datum of a specific type, drastically
> > increases the risk.
> >
> >
> Agreed.
>
> As I noted earlier, I don't at all think deTOASTing is a must for this
> function to be
> valuable, just as tuple_data_split() is also valuable without deTOASTINGing.
>
> I believe "best effort" is very reasonable in the case of a what is an
> investigatory
> method to begin with.
It's far from only toast that could be problematic here.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | James Coleman | 2018-10-17 17:14:17 | Re: pageinspect: add tuple_data_record() |
| Previous Message | James Coleman | 2018-10-17 17:04:33 | Re: pageinspect: add tuple_data_record() |