| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | dhyan(at)nataraj(dot)su, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pageinspect: add tuple_data_record() |
| Date: | 2018-10-17 16:54:13 |
| Message-ID: | 20181017165413.opmdtshax7pz6myy@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-10-17 12:36:54 -0400, James Coleman wrote:
> >
> >
> > I did compleatly got the question... The question is it safe to split
> > tuple
> > record into array of raw bytea? It is quite safe from my point of view.
> > We
> > use only data that is inside the tuple, and info from pg_catalog that
> > describes the tuple structure. So we are not affected if for example toast
> > table were cleaned by vacuum. If you try to deTOAST data when TOAST table
> > were
> > already overwritten by new data, you can get some trouble...
> >
> >
> The existing tuple_data_split() method already explicitly allows deTOASTing
> data,
> so if this is a problem, the problem already exists in pageinspect.
Indeed. But I do think your approach - which means that the binary data is
actually interpreded as a datum of a specific type, drastically
increases the risk.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | James Coleman | 2018-10-17 17:04:33 | Re: pageinspect: add tuple_data_record() |
| Previous Message | Nikolay Shaplov | 2018-10-17 16:51:46 | Re: pageinspect: add tuple_data_record() |