| From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, rmt(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Trying to break online checksums with LLMs |
| Date: | 2026-09-15 04:24:49 |
| Message-ID: | CAAc5aFM0duTw1=9PzpqjkNt+YmFiNEUB02_+86q+PTiXSbgR+Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 15, 2026 at 1:31 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> But it might be hard to
> tell the difference between a file that corresponds to nothing we saw
> in pg_class because it's orphaned and a file that corresponds to
> nothing we saw in pg_class because it was concurrently created and the
> pg_class entry isn't yet visible to us. And, in the latter case,
> skipping locking would probably be bad for all the same reasons it
> would be bad to do that in general. But if you can find some way to
> distinguish those cases reliably, then I think this might be a robust
> fix.
pg_orphaned ([1]) is using a dirty snapshot while looking for the
relfilnode(s) in
pg_class to distinguish those cases. Maybe we could do the same here?
[1]: https://github.com/bdrouvot/pg_orphaned
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | shveta malik | 2026-09-15 04:36:57 | Re: Distinguish publication exclusions in object addresses |
| Previous Message | Chao Li | 2026-09-15 04:22:54 | Re: Add ASCII fast path to Unicode normalization functions |