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/>
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 |