| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: small hstore bugfixes for 9.0 (w/patch) |
| Date: | 2010-09-16 02:37:50 |
| Message-ID: | 324.1284604670@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
I wrote:
> Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
>> The hstore_compat one is arguable as to what is the best approach; the
>> assert that was there was just wrong, but I have been unable after
>> considerable searching to find any architectures that would fail the
>> check.
> [ scratches head... ] It looks like that ought to be an immediate
> core-dump for old data, given an assert-enabled build. Are you
> saying it isn't? How?
I tried this, and indeed an assert-enabled hstore dumps core instantly
on a pg_upgraded table. So that upgrade path obviously hasn't been
tested very well. But I don't see why we don't just fix the Assert.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Gierth | 2010-09-16 03:38:54 | Re: small hstore bugfixes for 9.0 (w/patch) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-16 01:54:55 | Re: small hstore bugfixes for 9.0 (w/patch) |