| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bosco Rama <postgres(at)boscorama(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Large object corruption during 'piped' pg_restore |
| Date: | 2011-01-21 19:28:08 |
| Message-ID: | 17244.1295638088@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Bosco Rama <postgres(at)boscorama(dot)com> wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> So I'm not sure whether to fix it, or leave it as a known failure case
>>> in old branches. Comments?
>> As an end user there is one area of the DB that I want to work correctly
>> 100% of the time and that is the dump/restore tool(s).
> Yeah, I lean toward saying we should back-patch this.
Fair enough, I'll go do it. I just wanted to hear at least one other
person opine that it was worth taking some risk for.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2011-01-21 21:11:55 | Re: Constraint exclusion with box and integer |
| Previous Message | John R Pierce | 2011-01-21 19:16:46 | Re: pg_dumpall backup script w. ftp ; pgpass file ; after upgrade to Ubuntu 10.4 (lucid) and Postgresql 9.0.2 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2011-01-21 19:30:42 | Re: WIP: RangeTypes |
| Previous Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2011-01-21 18:59:56 | Re: Sync Rep for 2011CF1 |