| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: ERROR: missing chunk number 0 for toast value |
| Date: | 2014-01-06 14:47:04 |
| Message-ID: | 20140106144704.GI28320@alap2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-01-06 09:43:45 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I actually vote for not allowing doing so at all by erroring out when
> > accessing a plpgsql variable created in an aborted subxact, unless you
> > explicitly signal that you want to do do so by calling some function
> > deleting the information about which subxact a variable was created
> > in. I have seen several bugs caused by people assuming that EXCEPTION
> > BLOCK/subtransaction rollback had some kind of effects on variables
> > created in them. And we just don't have much support for doing anything
> > in that direction safely.
>
> So, you want to let users do things that are unsafe, but only if they
> ask nicely? That hardly seems right.
Well, no. If they have to use that function explicitly *before* the
subxact aborted, we can copy & detoast the value out of that context
safely.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-01-06 14:48:28 | Re: dynamic shared memory and locks |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-01-06 14:45:32 | Re: Hot standby 9.2.6 -> 9.2.6 PANIC: WAL contains references to invalid pages |