Re: InsertPgAttributeTuple() and attcacheoff

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: InsertPgAttributeTuple() and attcacheoff
Date: 2018-08-14 15:52:25
Message-ID: CA+Tgmob3ALDbQD0j+F9Y6Du72LCJXzjWutog8tq8dLzjXWZ=HQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> It seems to me that it would make sense if InsertPgAttributeTuple() were
>> to set attcacheoff to -1 instead of taking it from the caller.
>
> Looked this over, no objections.
>
> I wonder whether we should set that field to -1 when we *read*
> pg_attribute rows from disk, and be less fussed about what gets written
> out. The only real advantage is that this'd protect us from foolish
> manual changes to pg_attribute.attcacheoff entries, but that doesn't
> seem negligible.

I wouldn't object to forcibly writing in -1 when we read the data, but
I don't think it's a good idea to let values other than -1 get written
to the disk. User-visible random nonsense in system catalogs seems
like too much of a foot-gun to me.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2018-08-14 15:59:18 Re: Improve behavior of concurrent ANALYZE/VACUUM
Previous Message Robert Haas 2018-08-14 15:51:10 Re: Expression errors with "FOR UPDATE" and postgres_fdw with partition wise join enabled.