From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Assert failure due to "drop schema pg_temp_3 cascade" for temporary tables and \d+ is not showing any info after drooping temp table schema |
Date: | 2020-02-28 18:45:29 |
Message-ID: | 4172.1582915529@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Also, I notice that isTempNamespaceInUse is already detecting the case
> where the namespace doesn't exist or isn't really a temp namespace.
> I wonder whether it'd be better to teach that to return an indicator about
> the namespace not being what you think it is. That would force us to look
> at its other callers to see if any of them have related bugs, which seems
> like a good thing to check --- and even if they don't, having to think
> about the point in future call sites might forestall new bugs.
After poking around, I see there aren't any other callers. But I think
that the cause of this bug is clearly failure to think carefully about
the different cases that isTempNamespaceInUse is recognizing, so that
the right way to fix it is more like the attached.
In the back branches, we could leave isTempNamespaceInUse() in place
but unused, just in case somebody is calling it. I kind of doubt that
anyone is, given the small usage in core, but maybe.
regards, tom lane
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
handle-missing-temp-namespace-better-1.patch | text/x-diff | 3.6 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Przemysław Szustak | 2020-02-28 19:58:19 | Re: BUG #16283: crash on create index segmentation fault |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2020-02-28 18:11:35 | Re: BUG #16283: crash on create index segmentation fault |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-02-28 18:59:49 | Re: Allowing ALTER TYPE to change storage strategy |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-02-28 18:44:11 | Re: HAVE_WORKING_LINK still needed? |