| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Failed Assert in pgstat_assoc_relation |
| Date: | 2022-12-02 05:57:48 |
| Message-ID: | 532BDA3B-C183-4ED2-B434-6270B9C443BE@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On December 1, 2022 9:48:48 PM PST, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> On 2022-12-02 00:08:20 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Just the table-to-view hack. I'm not aware that there are any other
>>> cases, and it seems hard to credit that there ever will be any.
>
>> I can see some halfway credible scenarios. E.g. converting a view to a
>> matview, or a table into a partition. I kind of wonder if it's worth keeping
>> the change, just in case we do - it's not that easy to hit...
>
>I'd suggest putting in an assertion that the relkind isn't changing,
>instead.
Sounds like a plan. Will you do that when you remove the table-to-view hack?
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-12-02 06:03:35 | Re: Failed Assert in pgstat_assoc_relation |
| Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2022-12-02 05:50:00 | Re: Introduce a new view for checkpointer related stats |