Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL 7.0 a success

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Denis Perchine <dyp(at)perchine(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL 7.0 a success
Date: 2000-05-25 04:54:04
Message-ID: 21264.959230444@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-announce pgsql-general

Denis Perchine <dyp(at)perchine(dot)com> writes:
>> example? some way to recreate for debugging?

> 1. When you have created temp table and just killed frontend. Backend
> realize that connection is broken and somehow did not remove the table
> from pg_class. Then it will exists on the disk and in pg_class.

Hmm. I said to myself "no way", and did "create temp table foo ..."
followed by killing psql from another window. By golly, the pg_temp
file was still there, and it was still listed in pg_class, just as you
said. But then I haven't been able to repeat it in quite a few tries.
So there's a bug there, but it's not too easy to reproduce. Do you
have any idea what contributing conditions might be involved?

> 2. When you do operations with large objects (they are treated as
> relations also) and you do rollback or again connect broken. Or you do
> lots of lo_unlink and rollback or just broke connection.

lo_unlink is not safe to rollback, any more than a plain drop table is.
This is a known deficiency and probably will be for a while. In the
meantime the standard advice is "don't do that".

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-announce by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Denis Perchine 2000-05-25 05:26:58 Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL 7.0 a success
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2000-05-25 04:21:10 Re: [GENERAL] Re: PostgreSQL 7.0 a success

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Denis Perchine 2000-05-25 05:26:58 Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL 7.0 a success
Previous Message harshavardhan 2000-05-25 04:28:15 query...urgent