From: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Hubert Lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers mailing list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Segfault when restoring -Fd dump on current HEAD |
Date: | 2019-03-10 21:38:10 |
Message-ID: | CA+q6zcXx0XHqLsFJLaUU2j5BDiBAHig=YRoBC_YVq7VJGvzBEA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 7:15 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> The pluggable storage patchset contains exactly that... I've attached
> the precursor patch (CREATE ACCESS METHOD ... TYPE TABLE), and the patch
> for pg_dump support. They need a bit more cleanup, but it might be
> useful information for this thread.
Didn't expect this to happen so quickly, thanks!
> On 2019-03-04 13:25:40 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > >
> > > But it does basically require breaking archive compatibility. I
> > > personally am OK with that, but I thought it might be worth discussing.
> >
> > I don't recall there being huge pushback when we did that in the past,
> > so I'm fine with it as long as there's an identifiable feature making
> > it necessary.
>
> Cool.
Then I guess we need to add the attached patch on top of a pg_dump support for
table am. It contains changes to use NULL as a default value for owner / defn /
dropStmt (exactly what we've changed back in 19455c9f56), and doesn't crash,
since K_VERS is different.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
0001-ArchiveEntry-null-handling.patch | application/octet-stream | 12.8 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2019-03-10 22:27:54 | Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: multivariate histograms and MCV lists |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-03-10 20:58:39 | Re: Should we increase the default vacuum_cost_limit? |