Re: Missing TOAST table for pg_class

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Missing TOAST table for pg_class
Date: 2020-09-23 01:57:42
Message-ID: 20200923015742.GD16803@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 05:35:48PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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?

Not sure that's safe, as we also want to avoid circular dependencies
similarly for pg_class, pg_index and pg_attribute.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2020-09-23 02:05:36 Re: Syncing pg_multixact directories
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2020-09-23 01:56:16 Re: Handing off SLRU fsyncs to the checkpointer