Re: Missing TOAST table for pg_class

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Missing TOAST table for pg_class
Date: 2020-09-22 21:35:48
Message-ID: 1336452.1600810548@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

=?UTF-8?Q?Fabr=C3=ADzio_de_Royes_Mello?= <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Attached patch adds the TOAST to pg_class, and let's open again the
> discussion around it.

What exactly do you argue has changed since the previous decision
that should cause us to change it? In particular, where is the
additional data to change our minds about the safety of such a thing?

One thing I'd want to see is some amount of testing of pg_class toast
accesses under CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS and even CLOBBER_CACHE_RECURSIVELY.
AFAICT from reviewing the prior thread, nobody did any such thing.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2020-09-22 21:45:14 Re: Range checks of pg_test_fsync --secs-per-test and pg_test_timing --duration
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2020-09-22 21:35:37 Re: Lift line-length limit for pg_service.conf