Re: Autovaccuum vs temp tables crash

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Autovaccuum vs temp tables crash
Date: 2019-02-23 16:02:42
Message-ID: CABUevEzMEO8=xo+WBwBeVSNm9v_tF7xzoXoUVsHChCB7PwS8Pg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 5:01 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> > I think we're better off just peventing the explicit drop of a temp
> schema.
> > See attached?
>
> I think this is a poor implementation of a bad idea. Would you like a
> list of the ways a superuser can break the system? We could start with
> "DELETE FROM pg_proc;".
>

Yeah, true.

That said, I'm not sure there is much point in fixing the original problem
either. It comes down to a "don't do that", as the system just keeps
crashing even if we fix that one. Trying to fix every possible place that
breaks if there are tables with invalid data in pg_class like that is not
likely to work either.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2019-02-23 16:27:51 Re: [PATCH v20] GSSAPI encryption support
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-02-23 16:00:57 Re: Autovaccuum vs temp tables crash