From: | Phil Sorber <phil(at)omniti(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, OmniTI DBA <dba(at)omniti(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: WIP patch: Improve relation size functions such as pg_relation_size() to avoid producing an error when called against a no longer visible relation |
Date: | 2011-12-22 19:02:28 |
Message-ID: | CADAkt-gVTUC_xsZyOrL0W3vieESWid7dwuUoEr=xRrMBWoUkhA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I'm wondering if we oughta just return NULL and be done with it.
>
> +1. There are multiple precedents for that sort of response, which we
> introduced exactly so that "SELECT some_function(oid) FROM some_catalog"
> wouldn't fail just because one of the rows had gotten deleted by the
> time the scan got to it. I don't think it's necessary for the
> relation-size functions to be any smarter. Indeed, I'd assumed that's
> all that Phil's patch did, since I'd not looked closer till just now.
>
> regards, tom lane
Here it is without the checking for recently dead. If it can't open
the relation it simply returns NULL.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
improve_relation_size_functions_v3.patch | text/x-patch | 5.0 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-12-22 19:17:59 | Re: reprise: pretty print viewdefs |
Previous Message | Jignesh Shah | 2011-12-22 18:50:23 | Re: Page Checksums + Double Writes |