From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Emanuel <postgres(dot)arg(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #6041: Unlogged table was created bad in slave node |
Date: | 2011-06-07 19:24:53 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTikMWGdLgRAL+fCBKGaNs85eQo2K+w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Patch along these lines attached.
>>
>> Frankly, I find this quite ugly, and much prefer the general approach of
>> your previous patch in <BANLkTim433vF5HWjbJ0FSWm_-xA8DDaGNg(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>.
>>
>> However, I don't like where you put the execution-time test there. I'd
>> put it in ExecOpenScanRelation instead, so that it covers both seqscan
>> and indexscan accesses.
>
> Ah, OK. I was wondering if there was a better place. I'll do it that
> way, then.
I found a few other holes in my previous patch as well. I think this
plugs them all, but it's hard to be sure there aren't any other calls
to RelationGetNumberOfBlocks() that could bomb out.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
reject-unlogged-during-recovery-v3.patch | application/octet-stream | 3.0 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-07 19:53:59 | Re: BUG #6041: Unlogged table was created bad in slave node |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-07 19:05:13 | Re: BUG #6050: Dump and restore of view after a schema change: can't restore the view |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-06-07 19:31:48 | Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2011-06-07 19:24:07 | Re: heap vacuum & cleanup locks |