From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: missing toast table for pg_policy |
Date: | 2018-02-18 18:33:23 |
Message-ID: | ffa8552e-7517-01bd-9318-69c85f20754c@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 02/18/2018 11:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
>> Is there really a compelling reason to not just create toast tables for
>> all system catalogs as in the attached?
>
> What happens when you VACUUM FULL pg_class? (The associated toast table
> would have to be nonempty for the test to prove much.)
I tried this:
create table foo (id int);
do $$declare i int; begin for i in 1..1000 loop execute 'create user u'
|| i; end loop; end;$$;
do $$declare i int; begin for i in 1..1000 loop execute 'grant all on
foo to u' || i; end loop; end;$$;
vacuum full pg_class;
Worked without issue FWIW.
> I'm fairly suspicious of toasting anything that the toast mechanism itself
> depends on, actually, and that would include at least pg_attribute and
> pg_index as well as pg_class. Maybe we could get away with it because
> there would never be any actual recursion only potential recursion ...
> but it seems scary.
Well that is the other approach we could pursue -- instead of justifying
which system catalogs need toast tables we could create an exclusion
list of which ones should not have toast tables, with the current
candidates being pg_class, pg_attribute, and pg_index.
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-02-19 00:39:50 | Re: [HACKERS] Cache lookup errors with functions manipulation object addresses |
Previous Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2018-02-18 17:49:20 | Re: [HACKERS] Bug in to_timestamp(). |