| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Autovaccuum vs temp tables crash |
| Date: | 2019-02-27 06:39:03 |
| Message-ID: | 20190227063903.GE3540@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 07:21:40PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> The existing state of affairs is that a superuser who really needs to drop
> a temp schema can do so, if she's careful that it's not active. Pinning
> things would break that, or at least add an additional roadblock. If it's
> some sort of virtual pin rather than a regular pg_depend entry, then it
> *would* be impossible to get around (mumble ... DELETE FROM pg_namespace
> ... mumble). As against that, what problem are we fixing by preventing
> superusers from doing that? A careless superuser can screw things up
> arbitrarily badly in any case, so I'm not that fussed about the hazard
> that the namespace isn't idle.
And when you try to do chirugy on a corrupted cluster, it can be on
the contrary very useful to be able to work with objects and
manipulate them more freely as a superuser.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-02-27 06:42:50 | Re: TupleTableSlot abstraction |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-02-27 06:38:45 | Re: TupleTableSlot abstraction |