On 5/25/07, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> wrote:
> --On Freitag, Mai 25, 2007 00:02:06 +0000 Jaime Casanova
> <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > sounds good. can we see the new patch?
> Attached tablespace.c.diff shows my current changes to use an OID lookup
on second thought, what happens if someone drops an empty tablespace,
that already is in the temp_tablespace GUC, and recreate it (one
scenario for this is if you want to move the tablespace to a newer
better/faster location). then will have an invalid oid until at least
you execute a new SET temp_tablespaces. And we know some "DBA's"
doesn't read the manual, so maybe this behaviour will be unexpected
> > the reason for those messages is that the tablespace can get full or
> > can be dropped before use, so we throw the message for the dba to take
> > actions. if no one thinks is a good idea the message can be removed.
> I could imagine that this could irritate DBA's (at least, that is what
> happened to me during testing).
Well at least with this message they will be alerted, but still seems
silly to me... (make a SET with the same list just for updating cached
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
build bigger and better idiot-proof programs and the universe trying
to produce bigger and better idiots.
So far, the universe is winning."
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-05-27 03:59:03|
|Subject: Re: Error correction for n_dead_tuples |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-05-26 18:23:46|
|Subject: Re: Constraint exclusion crashes 8.3devel |