| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de> |
| Cc: | surya poondla <suryapoondla4(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Reject access to unlogged tables in contrib modules |
| Date: | 2026-11-06 05:26:21 |
| Message-ID: | au1k_JmP3tjy-y4Z@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 04, 2026 at 09:06:14AM +0100, Jim Jones wrote:
> Since the message is not wrong, I'd vote to keep it as is. This patch
> set keeps growing and I'd not like to take too much time from the
> committers for yet another cosmetic change.
>
> PFA v4. 0002-0005 are unchanged.
Note that for pg_visibility, read_stream has some protections when it
comes to temp tables of other sessions, but that does not fly under
!include_pd. Merged 0004 and 0005 together, tweaked a bit the whole,
and applied.
pgrowlocks (uses read_stream, safe for temp from other settions,
complains about recovery) has a single point of failure, with a weird
error message. Done as well.
Regarding pg_freespacemap, I am not convinced. Returning 0 reflects
also the reality: there is no FSM for the temp-from-other-session case
and temp/unlogged at recovery.
For pageinspect, we have a pageinspect.h, where I'd suggest to have a
common routine for the whole to remove the duplication. For
pgstattuple, we don't have a "common" path, but that seems worth
having to avoid duplicating this kind of check all over the place.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2026-11-06 05:29:48 | Re: Incorrect CONTEXT reported for errors from parallel apply worker in logical replication |
| Previous Message | Zhijie Hou | 2026-11-06 04:13:11 | Re: Avoid using raw xmin of frozen tuples in logicalrep conflict detection |