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 18:29:36 |
Message-ID: | 20140106182936.GA22252@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-01-06 12:40:25 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > On 2014-01-06 11:08:41 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Yea. But at least it would fail reliably instead of just under
> > concurrency and other strange circumstances - and there'd be a safe way
> > out. Currently there seem to be all sorts of odd behaviour possible.
> >
> > I simply don't have a better idea :(
>
> Is "forcibly detoast everything" a complete no-go? I realize there
> are performance concerns with that approach, but I'm not sure how
> realistic a worry it actually is.
The scenario I am primarily worried about is turning a record assignment
which previously took up to BLOCK_SIZE + slop amount of memory into
something taking up to a gigabyte. That's a pretty damn hefty
change.
And there's no good way of preventing it short of using a variable for
each actually desired column which imnsho isn't really a solution.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-01-06 18:54:58 | Re: dynamic shared memory and locks |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-01-06 18:17:32 | Re: Add CREATE support to event triggers |